Fear Not Law Articles: JOE ABOUAB v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Part I

JOE ABOUAB v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

Filed 7/20/06

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

JOE ABOUAB et al.,

Plaintiffs and Appellants,

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

A110940

(San Francisco County

Super. Ct. No. 946445)

Appellants here, Petitioners below, are Joe Abouab, Karl Plischke, and Terri Chantrelle (Petitioners). They filed a mandamus action against the City and County of San Francisco, its recorder, tax collector, and assessor (when referred to collectively, the City), seeking to compel the City to investigate an unreported change in ownership of a San Francisco property and reassess it. The reassessment happened, the upshot of which, after many years and many proceedings, was an increase in property tax revenue of some $64,000,000.

Petitioners made a motion seeking a determination that they are entitled to attorneys' fees in connection with that $64,000,000. The trial court rejected all of the theories on which Petitioners' fee claim was based, and denied them any fees. We, too, reject their claim and affirm.

I. THE BACKGROUND

A. Introduction

The appeal arises out of the 1993 reassessment of a San Francisco property called One Market Plaza, a commercial office building and nearby parking garage (One Market Plaza or the property). The reassessment was triggered under Article XIIIA of the California Constitution (Proposition 13), following a determination that there had been a change in ownership. The change in ownership was not a simple, straightforward transaction by any means, but a complex series of transactions beginning in 1986, involving The Equitable Life Assurance Company of the United States (Equitable), the International Business Machines Retirement Plan Trust Fund (Plan), and various â€

Description	Where plaintiffs filed mandamus action against city seeking to compel it to investigate an unreported change in ownership of property and reassess it for property tax purposes, which suit was a catalyst to city action resulting in great increase in property tax revenue, but plaintiffs did not prevail in writ action, plaintiffs were not entitled to recover attorney fees where, prior to filing writ action, plaintiffs gave no notice to city of their intent to file suit, did not disclose location of property to city or grounds for finding an ownership change, and did not attempt to settle the matter short of litigation.
Rating	0/5 1 2 3 4 5 0/5 based on 0 votes.