Supreme Court of California Justia
Citation 43 Cal. 4th 1231, 185 P.3d 43, 78 Cal. Rptr. 3d 62
Mayer v. L & B Real Estate

Filed 6/16/08

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA

FRANK MAYER et al.,
Plaintiffs and Respondents,
S142211
v.
Ct.App. 2/5 B180540
L&B REAL ESTATE,
Los Angeles County
Defendant and Appellant.
Super. Ct. No. BC283231

Frank and Josie Mayer brought an action to quiet title after they learned
that a small portion of a piece of commercial property they owned had been sold at
a tax sale. The trial court ruled that the Mayers had not been given adequate
notice of the tax delinquency and tax sale, but the Court of Appeal reversed the
resulting judgment, ruling that the Mayers’ action was barred by the statute of
limitations because they “had constructive and actual notice of the tax sale,
providing them with ample time to comply with the one-year limitations period.”
We disagree. The Mayers were in undisturbed possession of the property until
they received notice that a portion of their property had been sold; the one-year
statute of limitations did not begin to run until that time. They filed the present
suit within a year after receiving that notice. Accordingly, their action to quiet
title was timely filed.
1


FACTS
On December 16, 1991, plaintiffs Frank and Josie Mayer purchased from
Mark Gabay, Norman Gabay and Arman Gabaee a piece of commercial property
on La Brea Avenue in Los Angeles on which there was an AutoZone auto parts
store. The grant deed described the property as consisting of three parcels. Parcel
one was lots 508 and 509 of tract number 1466 and parcels two and three formerly
had been portions of La Brea Avenue.1 Each year following their purchase,
plaintiffs received from the Los Angeles County Tax Collector (hereafter Tax
Collector) assessments for property taxes in amounts that increased from over
$14,000 per year to more than $17,000 per year, which the Mayers timely paid.
On June 20, 2001, the Mayers received from the Tax Collector by certified
mail an “Official Notice of Auction” of property described as “POR OF VAC ST
ADJ LOT 509 TR NO 1446 ON E.” The notice listed the “Assessee Name” as
MOON, HENRY S AND CHONG I.” The amount to redeem the property was
$4,780.98 The notice stated: “Public records indicate you may have an interest in
the property described below. This property is scheduled for sale at public auction
to the highest bidder. If you do NOT have an interest in this property or believe
we have sent you this notice in error, please return this notice by writing on the
envelope “WRONG PARTY, RETURN TO SENDER” and drop in your nearest
U.S. mailbox . . . .”
The Mayers compared the assessor’s parcel number listed on the notice
(mapbook 5049, page 013, parcel 44) with the number on their tax bills (5049 013

1
The grant deed described parcel two as “that portion of La Brea Avenue,
vacated by ordinance of intention” with a metes and bounds description. Parcel
three was described as “that portion of La Brea Avenue, formerly 28th Avenue”
with a metes and bounds description.
2


047) and noticed that the parcel numbers differed. They also saw that the property
description on the notice did not match the property description on their deed, and
they had not heard of the named assessees, Henry and Chong Moon. The Mayers
telephoned either the assessor’s office or the Tax Collector to discover the address
of the property being auctioned, but whichever office they called could not
provide the address of the parcel. Concluding that the notice had been sent to
them in error, they followed the instructions on the notice and returned the notice
to the Tax Collector.
Unbeknownst to the Mayers, the property to which the notice referred
consisted of the second and third parcels described in their deed. This roughly
triangular piece of property was adjacent to the auto parts store and supported a
large, two-story-high sign that read AutoZone. Henry and Chong Moon had
owned the La Brea Avenue property when they purchased this parcel from the
City of Los Angeles in 1988. In 1989, the Moons recorded an agreement to hold
as one parcel the three parcels later described in plaintiffs’ grant deed. That same
year, the Moons sold the consolidated property to Bastian Development
Corporation, which in the same transaction conveyed the property, through an
intermediary, to the Gabays and Gabaee, who later sold the property to the
Mayers.
Despite the fact that the three parcels comprising the La Brea Avenue
property had been consolidated, the assessor’s office listed the property as two
separate parcels, both identified as appearing on page 13 of mapbook 5049. Parcel
47 included the double lot upon which stood the store, and parcel 44 consisted of
the roughly triangular piece of land upon which stood the sign. Listing the
property under separate parcel numbers was a departure from the assessor’s
normal procedure for handling consolidated properties, but this error was
3
compounded by a more serious error; the assessor’s office mistakenly assessed
parcel 44 in the name of Henry and Chong Moon, leading the Tax Collector to
send the property tax bill and other notices for this parcel to them. Not
surprisingly, the tax bill of $231.75 for fiscal year 1992-1993 was not paid and
notices of delinquency went unheeded. In June 1993, the parcel was declared to
be tax-defaulted.
These errors remained undetected until May of 2001 when parcel 44 was
scheduled for tax sale on August 6, 2001. On May 17, 2001, the Tax Collector
sent a letter to the assessor’s office noting that there was “a discrepancy in the
ownership” of several properties that were scheduled for the August tax sale, one
of which was Parcel 44. The letter noted that “the name of the owner of record”
differed from the information supplied by the assessor’s office and asked the
assessor’s office to conduct an investigation “to determine who is the correct
owner” of the parcels.
Despite discovering the error, the Tax Collector continued with the tax sale
and sent to the Mayers the notice of auction described above, which the Mayers
returned, believing the notice had been sent to them in error. On August 6, 2001,
parcel 44 was sold at auction to L&B Real Estate for $24,000 and a tax collector’s
deed was executed.
By letter dated November 2, 2001, the Tax Collector notified the Mayers
that parcel 44 had been “sold at public auction for nonpayment of taxes” and that
they could “file a claim for any excess proceeds.” This notice, for the first time,
listed Frank and Josie Mayer as the “assessee.”2 The Mayers went to the
assessor’s office, where a review of the official maps confirmed their fear that a

2
The record does not disclose the exact date the Mayers received this letter.
4


portion of their property had been sold. They were referred to another branch of
the assessor’s office before being told to go to the Tax Collector’s office.
On January 29, 2002, the Mayers explained to a representative of the Tax
Collector that a portion of their property apparently had been sold even though
they never had received a tax bill or notice of delinquency. They were sent to a
second representative, who asked them to reduce their complaint to writing.
Plaintiffs sent the Tax Collector a letter dated February 11, 2002, attempting to
“reinstate[] this property.” The Tax Collector responded by letter dated February
15, 2002, that it had “no legal basis to cancel the sale, as you were properly
notified of the sale of the subject parcel.” In a second letter dated April 16, 2002,
the Tax Collector repeated “that the sale of the subject property is valid.
Therefore, your request to cancel the sale is denied.”
Plaintiffs contacted their title insurance carrier, but were told the property
had been sold legally.
On September 7, 2002, L&B Real Estate informed AutoZone that it was the
owner of parcel 44 and wished to negotiate a lease agreement. AutoZone agreed
to pay L&B Real Estate rent of $1,800 per month beginning on October 1, 2002,
which sum it deducted from the rent it paid to the Mayers.
On October 11, 2002, more than one year after the tax sale but less than one
year after the Tax Collector’s letter notifying the Mayers of the sale, the Mayers
filed the present action to quiet title to parcel 44.
Following a court trial, the court entered judgment for the Mayers declaring
the tax sale void, ordering the Tax Collector to transfer to the Mayers $18,268.87
in “excess proceeds” from the tax sale, and ordering L&B Real Estate to pay to the
Mayers $17,446.48, which represented the $43,200 L&B Real Estate had collected
5
in rents from AutoZone offset by the $24,145.90 L&B Real Estate had paid at the
tax sale plus $1,607.62 it had paid in taxes.
The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment on the ground that the action
was barred by the one-year statute of limitations set forth in Revenue and Taxation
Code section 3725. That court reasoned that the Tax Collector’s November 2,
2001 letter gave the Mayers actual notice of the tax sale “within three months of
the limitations period’s triggering event—execution of the Tax Collector’s deed
. . . on August 6, 2001.” The Court of Appeal concluded that plaintiffs “had actual
notice of every fact necessary to bring their quiet title action, and ample time to do
so, before the one-year limitations period expired.”
DISCUSSION
It long has been the law that whether a statute of limitations bars an action
to quiet title may turn on whether the plaintiff is in undisturbed possession of the
land. (Tannhauser v. Adams (1947) 31 Cal.2d 169, 175 [“ ‘as a general rule, the
statute of limitations does not run against one in possession of land’ ”].) In Smith
v. Matthews (1889) 81 Cal. 120, a mistake in a deed purported to grant more land
than was intended, but the holder of this deed never took possession of this land,
which “remained in the actual possession of the plaintiffs.” (Id. at p. 121.) This
court held that the plaintiffs’ action to quiet title brought “many years” later was
not barred by the statute of limitations, because: “The right of the plaintiffs to
have their title to the land quieted, as against a claim asserted by the defendant
under this deed, was not barred, and could not be, while the plaintiffs and their
grantors remained in the actual possession of the land . . . .” (Ibid.) The reason
for this rule later was explained in Muktarian v. Barmby (1965) 63 Cal.2d 558,
560-561: “In many instances one in possession would not know of dormant
adverse claims of persons not in possession. [Citation.] Moreover, even if . . . the
6
party in possession knows of such a potential claimant, there is no reason to put
him to the expense and inconvenience of litigation until such a claim is pressed
against him. [Citation.]”
Sears v. County of Calaveras (1955) 45 Cal.2d 518, 521, recognized the
general rule “that a statute limiting the time for the commencement of an action to
set aside a deed to the state for delinquent taxes does not apply to an owner in
exclusive and undisputed possession of the property taxed,” but clarified that this
general rule does not apply “as against a special statute of limitation foreclosing
the commencement of an action to set aside a deed to the state for delinquent
taxes” unless a jurisdictional defect is alleged. We restated this same rule in
Kaufman v. Gross & Co. (1979) 23 Cal.3d 750, 755, explaining that “a
‘jurisdictional’ defect in tax sale proceedings which arises from a failure of notice
. . . may be barred by a reasonable statutory period of limitation in cases wherein
the party against whom the statute is raised is not an owner in ‘undisturbed
possession’ at the time of such proceedings.”
The Court of Appeal in the present case held that the Mayers’ action to
quiet title was barred by Revenue and Taxation Code section 3725, which
provides that “[a] proceeding based upon alleged invalidity or irregularity of” a
sale of tax-defaulted real property “can only be commenced within one year after
the date of execution of the tax collector’s deed.”3 When this statute of limitations
was enacted in 1939, the Code Commission Notes to section 3725 acknowledged
that “[t]he statute of limitations in this section would not apply to cases of a
jurisdictional invalidity where the original owner was still in possession of the

3
All further undesignated statutory references are to the Revenue and
Taxation Code.
7


property. [Citations.]” (Code Com. Note, reprinted at 59B West’s Ann. Rev. &
Tax. Code (1998 ed.) foll. § 3725 p. 88; see Tannhauser v. Adams, supra, 31
Cal.2d 169, 175 [“ ‘ “So long as the original owner of land which has been sold
for taxes remains in undisturbed possession of it, the statute of limitations does not
run against him or prevent the maintenance of a suit to set aside the tax sale or
remove the cloud on his title.” ’ ”].) In the present case, the Mayers alleged a
jurisdictional defect, claiming that the deed is invalid because the tax collector
denied them due process by failing to give them adequate notice of the tax sale.
But the rule that the statute of limitations does not bar an action to quiet
title by an owner in undisturbed possession of land does not apply if the owner has
adequate notice that title to the property has been transferred for nonpayment of
taxes. (McCaslin v. Hamblen (1951) 37 Cal.2d 196, 199.) In Kaufman v. Gross &
Co., supra, 23 Cal.3d 750, payments due under a street lighting bond became
delinquent. The property was sold to the defendants and a certificate of sale was
recorded, but during the one-year redemption period before a tax deed could be
issued to the defendants, the property was sold to the plaintiff. At the end of the
redemption period, a treasurer’s deed was issued to the defendants and the plaintiff
brought an action to quiet title. We held, however, that the action was barred by
the applicable statute of limitations, concluding that the plaintiff was not an owner
in undisturbed possession because the certificate of sale to the defendants had
been recorded more than a year before the grant deed was conveyed to the
plaintiff. (Id. at p. 757.) Accordingly, the plaintiff in Kaufman was not “an owner
in possession lacking any reasonable means of alerting himself to the tax
proceedings affecting his property . . . the certificate of sale being of record at the
time he received his deed and took possession.” (Id. at p. 759.)
8
Ordinarily, the circumstance that a property owner has failed to pay
property taxes is sufficient to put the owner on notice that a tax sale might result.
In Sears v. County of Calaveras, supra, 45 Cal.2d 518, we held that an action to
declare invalid a deed issued to the state for nonpayment of taxes was barred by
the statute of limitations. We rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the statute of
limitations did not apply because they were in undisturbed possession of the
property, stating: “There appears to be no reason why an owner of land, although
in exclusive and undisputed possession, should not be required to be alert to
protect his rights as against his own delinquency in the payment of taxes.” (Id. at
pp. 521-522.)
It is not invariably true, however, that the statute of limitations will run
against a property owner who fails to pay property taxes. The Court of Appeal in
Atkins v. Kessler (1979) 97 Cal.App.3d 784 held that our decision in Sears did not
apply to property owners who had failed to pay a special assessment for street
improvements and had no actual notice of the tax sale proceedings. The court
distinguished our decision in Sears on the ground that Sears involved “ordinary
property taxes,” while Atkins involved “a special street improvement assessment
lien,” observing that “the owner of real property can reasonably expect that his
property will be taxed and that he will receive periodic notice thereof. In contrast,
in the situation of a special assessment . . . notice is not expected as a routine
matter. . . . Thus, unlike the situation of a property owner delinquent in ordinary
real estate taxes, we do not believe that the very fact of the specially-assessed
property owner’s delinquency . . . operates to charge him ‘ “with notice that if he
claims the invalidity of a tax deed . . . he must bring his action for that purpose
within the statutory time.” ’ [Citation.]” (Atkins v. Kessler, supra, 97 Cal.App.3d
784, 791.)
9
The present case does not involve a special assessment of property taxes as
in Atkins, but the circumstances of the present case still are analogous to the
circumstances in Atkins because the Mayers had no actual notice and no reason to
suspect that they were delinquent in paying their property taxes. The Mayers
purchased a single piece of commercial property and received a single yearly tax
bill for an appropriate amount of taxes, which they timely paid. They reasonably
believed that paying the property tax bills they received from the assessor satisfied
their obligation to pay property taxes. They had no reason to suspect that, due to
errors committed by the assessor’s office, a small portion of their property was
being assessed separately and tax bills were being sent to a previous owner. Thus,
as was the case in Atkins, the mere fact that the Mayers were delinquent on their
property taxes on parcel 44 did not put them on notice and did not disturb their
possession or trigger the running of the statute of limitations.
The first notice sent to the Mayers was the notice of the tax sale they
received by certified mail on June 20, 2001, but this was insufficient to disturb
their possession. The notice listed names unknown to the Mayers as the owners of
the property, the legal description did not match the description on their yearly tax
bill, and the notice instructed the Mayers to return the notice if they believed it had
been sent to them in error. The Mayers did so, and heard nothing further until the
Tax Collector’s November 2, 2001 letter notified them that the property had been
“sold at public auction for nonpayment of taxes” and, for the first time, listed the
Mayers as the owners of the subject property. It was only at this point, in
November of 2001, that the Mayers were put on notice sufficient to disturb their
possession of the property and only at this point did the statute of limitations begin
to run.
10
The Court of Appeal in the present case recognized that, under our decision
in Kaufman, the statute of limitations would not run against an owner in
“undisturbed possession,” but concluded that the Mayers could not benefit from
this rule because “they had actual notice of the tax sale when they received the
Tax Collector’s notice of excess proceeds on approximately November 2, 2001,
within three months of the limitation period’s triggering event — execution of the
Tax Collector’s deed at the time of the sale to L&B on August 6, 2001.” The
Court of Appeal held that the statute of limitations barred the Mayers’ action
because “[i]n the almost six months following that, the Mayers did nothing to
regain title.”
But the Court of Appeal answered the wrong question. The pertinent
question is not whether the Mayers received adequate notice before the statute of
limitations expired, because that presupposes that the statute of limitations had
begun to run prior to the time that the Mayers received such notice. Under our
decision in Kaufman, the statute of limitations against a jurisdictional attack on the
tax deed could not begin to run while the owners were in undisturbed possession
of the property. (Kaufman v. Gross & Co., supra, 23 Cal.3d 750, 755.) It is
undisputed that the Mayers were in possession of the property at all relevant times.
The crucial issue, therefore, is when their possession of the property was disturbed
by adequate notice of the tax sale. As noted above, this happened when the
Mayers received the Tax Collector’s November 2, 2001 letter. Only then could
the statute of limitations begin to run.
Thus, the statute of limitations set forth in section 3725 began to run when
the Mayers received the November 2, 2001 letter and expired one year later. The
Mayers’ action to quiet title filed in October 2002, therefore, was timely.
11
DISPOSITION
The judgment of the Court of Appeal is reversed and the matter remanded
for further proceedings consistent with the views expressed in this opinion.
MORENO, J.
WE CONCUR: GEORGE, C. J.
KENNARD,
J.
BAXTER,
J.
WERDEGAR,
J.
CHIN,
J.
CORRIGAN,
J.
12

See next page for addresses and telephone numbers for counsel who argued in Supreme Court.

Name of Opinion Mayer v. L & B Real Estate
__________________________________________________________________________________

Unpublished Opinion


Original Appeal
Original Proceeding
Review Granted
XXX 136 Cal.App.4th 947
Rehearing Granted

__________________________________________________________________________________

Opinion No.

S142211
Date Filed: June 16, 2008
__________________________________________________________________________________

Court:

Superior
County: Los Angeles
Judge: Barbara Ann Meiers

__________________________________________________________________________________

Attorneys for Appellant:

Ezer Williamson & Brown and Mitchel J. Ezer for Defendant and Appellant.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Attorneys for Respondent:

Steven W. Weinshenk, Edward Ovetsky; Stephan, Oringher, Richman, Theodora & Miller, Buchalter
Nemer, Harry W. R. Chmaberlain II, Gregory James Stephan and Robert M. Dato for Plaintiffs and
Respondents.



Counsel who argued in Supreme Court (not intended for publication with opinion):

Mitchel J. Ezer
Ezer Williamson & Brown
1888 Century Park East, Suite 1550
Los Angeles, CA 90067-1720
(310) 277-7747

Harry W. R. Chamberlain II
Buchalter Nemer
1000 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1500
Los Angeles, CA 90017-2457
(310) 891-0700


Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following issue: Was plaintiffs' quiet title action barred by Revenue and Taxation Code section 3725 because it was not brought within one year of the sale of the property at a tax sale?

Opinion Information
Date:Citation:Docket Number:Category:Status:
Mon, 06/16/200843 Cal. 4th 1231, 185 P.3d 43, 78 Cal. Rptr. 3d 62S142211Review - Civil Appealclosed; remittitur issued

Parties
1Mayer, Frank (Plaintiff and Respondent)
Represented by Harry W. R. Chamberlain
Buchalter Nemer, PLC
1000 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1500
Los Angeles, CA

2Mayer, Frank (Plaintiff and Respondent)
Represented by George James Stephan
Buchalter Nemer, PLC
1000 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1500
Los Angeles, CA

3Mayer, Frank (Plaintiff and Respondent)
Represented by Steven W. Weinshenk
Law Ofc Steven W Weinshenk
16830 Ventura Blvd., Ste 347
Encino, CA

4L&B Real Estate (Defendant and Appellant)
Represented by Mitchel J. Ezer
Ezer Williamson et al., LLP
1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1900
Los Angeles, CA

5Mayer, Josie (Plaintiff and Respondent)
Represented by George James Stephan
Buchalter Nemer, PLC
1000 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1500
Los Angeles, CA

6Mayer, Josie (Plaintiff and Respondent)
Represented by Harry W. R. Chamberlain
Buchalter Nemer, PLC
1000 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1500
Los Angeles, CA


Opinion Authors
OpinionJustice Carlos R. Moreno
ConcurChief Justice Ronald M. George, Justice Carol A. Corrigan, Justice Joyce L. Kennard, Justice Kathryn M. Werdegar, Justice Marvin R. Baxter, Justice Ming W. Chin

Disposition
Jun 16 2008Opinion: Reversed

Dockets
Mar 27 2006Petition for review filed
  Frank Mayer, respondent Harry W.R. Chamberlain II, retained.
Apr 3 2006Received Court of Appeal record
 
Apr 14 2006Answer to petition for review filed
  Frank Mayer - respondent by: Mitchel J. Ezer. Esq.
May 1 2006Received:
  from counsel for resp. (late) reply to petition for review
May 2 2006Filed:
  by counsel for resp. Request to file late Reply to Petition for Review.
May 3 2006Reply to answer to petition filed
  by counsel for resps. (Mayer) w/ permission
May 24 2006Petition for review granted (civil case)
  Votes: George, C.J., Kennard, Baxter, Werdegar, Chin, Moreno, and Corrigan, JJ.
Jun 5 2006Certification of interested entities or persons filed
  counsel for resp. (Mayer)
Jun 23 2006Opening brief on the merits filed
  respondents frank and Josie Mayer
Jul 24 2006Answer brief on the merits filed
  L&B Real Estate, appellant Mitchel J. Ezer, Esq., retained.
Aug 15 2006Application to file over-length brief filed
  counsel for resps. (40.1(b))
Aug 15 2006Received:
  from counsel for resps. reply brief on the merits. (40.1(b))
Aug 16 2006Reply brief filed (case fully briefed)
  w/permission by counsel for resps.
Feb 1 2007Filed:
  Notice of Change of Firm Name {attorneys for respondents Fank and Josie Mayer} from Stephan, Oringher, Richmann, Theodore & Miller, P.C. to -> Theodora, Oringher, Miller & Richman P.C.
Mar 16 2007Filed:
  Substitution of Attorney by counsel for respondents (Mayer) substitutes George J .Stephan
Jul 9 20072nd record request
  additional records
Jul 10 2007Received Court of Appeal record
 
Apr 9 2008Case ordered on calendar
  to be argued on Monday, May 5, 2008, at 1:30 p.m. in San Francisco
Apr 15 2008Received:
  Change of firm notification for atty. George J. Stephan for respondents {Mayer} received on a substitution of attorney form.
Apr 21 2008Note: Mail returned and re-sent
  Appearance sheet and oral argument calendar resent by fax to Mitchell J. Ezer, counsel for appellant L&B Real Estate. Firm change of address will be submitted on the returned Appearance Sheet.
Apr 28 2008Supplemental brief filed
  counsel for respondents (Mayer)
May 5 2008Cause argued and submitted
 
Jun 16 2008Opinion filed: Judgment reversed
  and Remanded. The judgment of the Court of Appeal is reversed and the matter remanded for further proceedings consistent with the views expressed in this opinion. OPINION BY: Moreno, J. --- joined by: George, C.J. Kennard, Baxter, Werdegar, Chin, and Corrigan, JJ.
Jul 29 2008Remittitur issued (civil case)
 
Aug 4 2008Received:
  Acknowledgment of receipt for remittitur from Second Appellate District Court of Appeal, Div. 5.
Aug 8 2008Note:
  records returned to L. A. Supreme Co. (3 vols.)
Aug 11 2008Note:
 

Briefs
Jun 23 2006Opening brief on the merits filed
 
Jul 24 2006Answer brief on the merits filed
 
Aug 16 2006Reply brief filed (case fully briefed)
 
If you'd like to submit a brief document to be included for this opinion, please submit an e-mail to the SCOCAL website
May 25, 2011
Annotated by kelli newman

FACTS:
The plaintiffs, Frank and Josie Mayer, purchased a property consisting of three parcels from Mark Gabay, Norman Gabay, and Arman Gabaee on December 16, 1991. Since their purchase of the property, the Mayers have received and timely paid assessments for property taxes on that purchase. On June 20, 2001, the Mayers received an “Official Notice of Auction” of property described as “POR OF VAC ST ADJ LOT 509 TR NO 1446 ON E” from the Tax Collector. Confirming that the property described in the official notice of auction did not match the property described on their deed, and having never heard the name of Henry and Chong Moon, the assessees listed, the Mayers concluded that the notice had been sent in error and returned it to the Tax Collector per the Tax Collector’s instructions.

However, the property mentioned in the notice actually did consist of two parcels described in the Mayers’ deed. In 1988, Henry and Chong Moon purchased this property from the City of Los Angeles. In 1989, the Moons recorded an agreement to hold the three parcels later described in the Mayers’ deed as one parcel. Later in 1989, the Moons sold this consolidated property to a development company which in turn conveyed it to the Gabays and Gabaee, who later sold it to the Mayers. Due to a mistake in the assessor’s office, this property was listed as two separate parcels. This mistake was compounded when the assessor’s office assessed one of the parcels in the Moons’ name, leading the Tax Collector to send the property tax bill and other notices for this parcel to the Moons. Not being the owner of the property, the Moons did not pay the taxes and ignored notices of delinquency. In June 1993, the Tax Collector declared the parcel tax-defaulted and scheduled the property for tax sale on August 6, 2001. At the tax sale, the parcel in question was sold to defendants L&B Real Estate, and a tax collector’s deed was executed.

On September 7, 2002, L&B Real Estate informed AutoZone, which had a large, two story high sign on the parcel, that L&B was the new owner of the parcel and that AutoZone must pay them rent, which AutoZone did and deducted that amount from the monthly rent it paid the Mayers for use of the remaining property.

On November 2, 2001, the Mayers received notification from the Tax Collector that the parcel had been “sold at public auction for nonpayment of taxes” and that they could “file a claim for any excess proceeds.” This was the first notice on which the Mayers were listed as the “assessee.” An official map at the assessor’s office confirmed that the tax sale did indeed include a portion of the Mayers’ property. On January 29, 2002, the Mayers informed the Tax Collector’s office that they never received a tax bill or notice of delinquency on the property sold at the tax sale, but received a reply from the Tax Collector dated February 15, 2002, stating that there was “no legal basis to cancel the sale, as you were properly notified of the sale of the subject parcel.”

On October 11, 2002, the Mayers filed an action to quiet title to the parcel in question. This filing was more than one year after the tax sale, but less than one year after the Tax Collector notified the Mayers of the sale.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY:
At the trial level, the court ruled that the Mayers had not been given adequate notice of the delinquency and sale and entered a judgement for the Mayers. This judgment voided the tax sale, ordered the Tax Collector to transfer the “excess proceeds” of the tax sale to the Mayers, and ordered L&B Real Estate to pay the Mayers the rent they had collected from AutoZone, minus the amount they paid the Tax Collector and the taxes they paid on the parcel.

At the Court of Appeal, however, the trial court’s judgment was reversed based on the Court of Appeal’s belief that the Mayer’s quiet title action was barred by the one-year statute of limitations set forth in section 3725 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, which the Court of Appeals found to have expired one year after the property was sold on August 6, 2001.

The Mayers appealed the Court of Appeal's ruling, and the case was brought before the Supreme Court of California.

ISSUE:
The issue for the Court of Appeal was whether the plaintiffs' quiet title action was barred by Revenue and Taxation Code section 3725 because it was not brought within one year of the sale of the property at a tax sale. However, the Supreme Court of California points out in its holding that “the Court of Appeal answered the wrong question.” Instead, the California Supreme Court opined, the real issue is: when was the Mayers’ possession of the property disturbed by adequate notice of the tax sale? The answer to this question would determine whether the plaintiffs’ quiet title action was filed within the one year statute of limitations prescribed by Revenue and Taxation Code section 3725.

HOLDING:
The Supreme Court of California held that the Mayers were in undisturbed possession of the property until they received the Tax Collector’s November 2, 2001 letter. It was at this point that the statute of limitations began to run. The Mayers’ October 2002 filing of the present action to quiet title, therefore, was found timely by the California Supreme Court.

ANALYSIS:
The Supreme Court of California explained that “It has long been the law that whether a statute of limitations bars an action to quiet title may turn on whether the plaintiff is in undisturbed possession of the land.” Tannhauser v. Adams (1947) 31 Cal.2d 169, 175. Explaining the rationale for this rule, the Court points to Muktarian v. Barmby: “In many instances one in possession would not know of dormant adverse claims of persons not in possession. Moreover, even if . . . the party in possession knows of such a potential claimant, there is no reason to put him to the expense and inconvenience of litigation until such a claim is pressed against him.” Muktarian v. Barmby (1965) 63 Cal.2d 558, 560-561.

While the Court acknowledges that failure to pay property taxes is ordinarily sufficient to put the owner on notice that a tax sale might result, they ultimately find that “the Mayers had no actual notice and no reason to suspect that they were delinquent in paying their property taxes.” Under the California Supreme Court’s holding in Kaufman v. Gross & Co., “the statute of limitations against a jurisdictional attack on a tax deed could not begin to run while the owners were in undisturbed possession of the property.” Kaufman v. Gross & Co. (1979) 23 Cal.3d 750, 755.

Importantly, the California Supreme Court held that it is “undisputed” that the Mayers were in undisturbed possession of the property until they received the November 2, 2001 notice of sale. It was at that point, the Court held, that the one year statute of limitations began to run. Since the Mayers filed the present suit within a year after receiving the November 2, 2001 notice, their action to quiet title was timely filed per the one-year statute of limitations set forth in section 3725 of the Revenue and Taxation Code.

RELATED CASES:
Kaufman v. Gross & Co. (1979) 23 Cal.3d 750
(https://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/kaufman-v-gross-co-28144)

Tannhauser v. Adams (1947) 31 Cal.2d 169
(https://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/tannhauser-v-adams-26041)

Muktarian v. Barmby (1965) 63 Cal.2d 558
(https://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/muktarian-v-barmby-32857)

TAGS:
quiet title, statute of limitations, tax delinquency, tax sale