Hartford v. County of Los Angeles

218 Cal. App. 2d 613, 32 Cal. Rptr. 350, 1963 Cal. App. LEXIS 1822
California Court of Appeal·Decided July 24, 1963·No. Civ. No. 26833·Published

Opinion

BURKE, P. J

Plaintiff sued for a refund of ad valorem taxes levied against its property for the years 1954 to 1957, on the ground that the property was exempt from taxation under the so-called “welfare exemption.” Recovery was denied by the trial court on the ground that, although plaintiff had taken all necessary procedural steps to claim the exemption prior to paying the taxes, it had not filed its refund claims within the three-year period set forth in section 5097 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. Plaintiff’s contention that compliance with this provision was not required by the refund statute (Rev. & Tax. Code, § 268) was expressly rejected by Division Two of this court in Samarkand of Santa Barbara, Inc. v. County of Santa Barbara, 216 Cal.App.2d 341 [31 Cal.Rptr. 151] (hearing in Supreme Court denied).

On the authority of that ease, the judgment is affirmed.

Jefferson, J., and Kingsley, J., concurred.

[614] Appellant’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied September 18, 1963. Peters, J., was of the opinion that the petition should be granted.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Hartford v. County of Los Angeles, 218 Cal. App. 2d 613, 32 Cal. Rptr. 350, 1963 Cal. App. LEXIS 1822 (Cal. Ct. App. 1963).

218 Cal. App. 2d 613 (Hartford v. County of Los Angeles) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Samarkand of Santa Barbara, Inc. v. County of Santa Barbara
216 Cal. App. 2d 341 (California Court of Appeal, 1963)