Fear Not Law Articles: Lusardi v. County of Riverside

Lusardi v

Lusardi v. County of Riverside

Filed 1/10/07 Lusardi v. County of Riverside CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

W.C. LUSARDI,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE,

Defendant and Respondent.

E040016

(Super.Ct.No. RIC379258)

O P I N I O N

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Gloria Trask, Judge. Affirmed in part and reversed in part.

Niddrie, Fish & Buchanan and David A. Niddrie for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Kinkle, Rodiger and Spriggs and Bruce E. Disenhouse for Defendant and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION

At a March 5, 1990, tax sale of a Palm Desert apartment complex, W.C. Lusardi (Lusardi) was the highest of several bidders, paying the County of Riverside (the County) a total of $269,796.45 for the property, including transfer fees, in exchange for a tax deed. Thereafter, Lusardi and the owner of the property at the time of the sale, an entity named 40235 Washington Street, Inc. (Washington Street), engaged in extensive litigation in both state and federal court concerning the validity of the tax deed, among other issues.

On August 1, 2002, over 12 years after the March 1990 tax sale, Lusardi filed the present action against the County. In a first amended complaint, Lusardi sought a refund of the purchase price he paid for the property, pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code section 3729^{^[1]} (the first cause of action) and rescission of the tax deed pursuant to section 3731 (the second cause of action). He also asserted separate claims for constructive trust and unjust enrichment (the third and fourth causes of action).

The County moved for summary judgment and/or summary adjudication of each of Lusardi's causes of action. The trial court granted the County's motion in its entirety, denied Lusardi's cross-motion for summary judgment and/or adjudication of his refund claim (his first cause of action), and entered judgment in favor of the County. On this appeal, Lusardi does not challenge the trial court's summary adjudication, in favor of the County, of his second, third, and fourth causes of action. Lusardi challenges only the adverse summary adjudication of his first cause of action, his refund claim. The trial court ruled that the refund claim was barred by the one-year limitations period of section 3729.

We reverse the judgment to the extent it summarily adjudicates Lusardi's refund claim in favor of the County, and affirm the judgment in all other respects. Under section 3729, a refund claim for monies paid at a tax sale must be presented within one year after â€

Description	At a March 5, 1990, tax sale of a Palm Desert apartment complex, W.C. Lusardi (Lusardi) was the highest of several bidders, paying the County of Riverside (the County) a total of $ 269,796.45 for the property, including transfer fees, in exchange for a tax deed. Thereafter, Lusardi and the owner of the property at the time of the sale, an entity named 40235 Washington Street, Inc. (Washington Street), engaged in extensive litigation in both state and federal court concerning the validity of the tax deed, among other issues. On August 1, 2002, over 12 years after the March 1990 tax sale, Lusardi filed the present action against the County. In a first amended complaint, Lusardi sought a refund of the purchase price he paid for the property, pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code section 3729 (the first cause of action) and rescission of the tax deed pursuant to section 3731 (the second cause of action). He also asserted separate claims for constructive trust and unjust enrichment (the third and fourth causes of action). The County moved for summary judgment and?/or summary adjudication of each of Lusardi's causes of action. The trial court granted the County's motion in its entirety, denied Lusardi's cross motion for summary judgment and/or adjudication of his refund claim (his first cause of action), and entered judgment in favor of the County. On this appeal, Lusardi does not challenge the trial court's summary adjudication, in favor of the County, of his second, third, and fourth causes of action. Appellant challenges only the adverse summary adjudication of his first cause of action, his refund claim. The trial court ruled that the refund claim was barred by the one year limitations period of section 3729. Court reverse the judgment to the extent it summarily adjudicates Lusardi's refund claim in favor of the County, and affirm the judgment in all other respects.
Rating	0/5 1 2 3 4 5 0/5 based on 0 votes.