GLENDALE v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Filed 2/7/11; pub. order 3/3/11 (see end of opn.)
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION EIGHT
EHP GLENDALE et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Defendant and Appellant. | B217036 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC 385925) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Ann I. Jones, Judge. Reversed and remanded.
Cahill Davis & O'Neall, Cris K. O'Neall, C. Stephen Davis, John D. Cahill, Kenneth A. Franklin and Andrew W. Bodeau for Plaintiffs and Appellants.
Reed Smith, Marty Dakessian, Wendy S. Albers and John R. Messenger for the California Taxpayers' Assocation as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiffs and Appellants.
Andrea Sheridan Ordin, County Counsel, Albert Ramseyer, Deputy County Counsel, for Defendant and Appellant.
Jennifer B. Henning for the California State Association of Counties as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant
The County of Los Angeles (County) appeals from the grant of summary judgment to EHP Glendale, LLC and Eagle Hospitality Properties Trust, Inc. (Eagle), on Eagle's action for a property tax refund. The County contends the trial court erred in ruling as a matter of law that the Los Angeles County Assessor (assessor) and the Los Angeles County Assessment Appeals Board (Board) used the wrong methodology in appraising the Glendale Hilton Hotel (hotel or property) after its purchase by Eagle. In turn, Eagle cross-appeals from the trial court order denying its motion for attorney fees.
We hold that the trial court erred in granting a summary judgment on an incomplete record, and, in any case, the record establishes there are triable issues of material fact. For the reasons explained below, the judgment must be reversed and the case remanded for trial.
FACTS[1]
1. The Subject Property
The property at issue is located near the intersection of Brand Boulevard and Glenoaks Boulevard in the City of Glendale (City). The 18-story structure, built in 1991, is operated as a full-service first class hotel with 351 guestrooms, including 13 suites. The hotel encompasses about 285,000 square feet of improvements, including a lobby, administrative offices, hotel laundry, two ballrooms, a prefunction area, seven meeting rooms, a business center, a fitness facility, a gift shop, an outdoor pool and spa with sundeck, two restaurants, a lounge, kitchen facilities and an approximately 196,000 square feet, five-level, below grade parking garage accommodating over 500 vehicles.
2. Hotel Sale and Purchase
In January 2005, the Hilton Hotels Corporation (Hilton) offered the hotel for sale. Hilton marketed the property as being located in a prime location, distant from competing Hilton hotels, relatively insulated from new supply, in good physical condition and the only â€
Description | The County of Los Angeles (County) appeals from the grant of summary judgment to EHP Glendale, LLC and Eagle Hospitality Properties Trust, Inc. (Eagle), on Eagle's action for a property tax refund. The County contends the trial court erred in ruling as a matter of law that the Los Angeles County Assessor (assessor) and the Los Angeles County Assessment Appeals Board (Board) used the wrong methodology in appraising the Glendale Hilton Hotel (hotel or property) after its purchase by Eagle. In turn, Eagle cross-appeals from the trial court order denying its motion for attorney fees. We hold that the trial court erred in granting a summary judgment on an incomplete record, and, in any case, the record establishes there are triable issues of material fact. For the reasons explained below, the judgment must be reversed and the case remanded for trial. |
Rating |