In Marlton Recovery Partners, LLC v. County of Los Angeles, et al. (filed 11/20/15), the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, affirmed summary judgment in favor of the defendants County of Los Angeles, the County Treasurer-Tax Collector and Board of Supervisors (collectively the “County”) despite the fact summary judgment was granted on grounds not raised by the County. The Court of Appeal determined that because the plaintiff could not have shown a triable issue of material fact on the ground of law relied upon by the trial court, summary judgment was proper.
In the underlying case, plaintiff sought cancellation of penalties on delinquent property taxes for 26 parcels under Revenue and Taxation Code §4985.2, which allows the tax collector to cancel such penalties under certain circumstances. The County denied the request prompting plaintiff to challenge the denial on a petition for peremptory writ of mandate to the trial court.
The County moved for summary judgment on the ground that plaintiff could not establish he had paid the principal amount of taxes required by Section 4985.2. Plaintiff opposed, but the trial court ruled that payment of delinquent taxes is a required condition before the tax authority can consider the application for cancellation of penalties.
Plaintiff appealed, arguing summary judgment was in error because it was based on a ground not raised by the County and that the trial court’s interpretation of Section 4985.2 was erroneous as a matter of law. In its review, the Court of Appeal acknowledged that typically when a court identifies an alternative basis in the evidence that is dispositive of the action but not explicitly raised by the moving party, it can nonetheless exercise its discretion to grant the motion on said ground provided the opposing party has an opportunity to address the issue. There is an exception to this general rule, however, where the record demonstrates the opposing party could not have created a triable issue of material fact even if the ground of law had been asserted by the moving party.
Because the undisputed evidence established plaintiff paid the delinquent taxes after he had requested cancellation of the penalties, he could not have raised a triable issue of material fact on the point relied on by the trial court, even if that point had been raised by the moving party.
Lastly, the Court of Appeal determined that under the plain language of Section 4985.2, the County cannot cancel tax penalties unless the delinquent taxes were timely paid, which they were not.
This case is significant as it recognizes the circumstance where even if a moving party fails to raise all viable arguments on summary judgment, the court still has discretion to grant the motion on alternative grounds raised by the court provided the evidence supports that ruling.
This document is intended to provide you with information about general liability law related developments. The contents of this document are not intended to provide specific legal advice. This communication may be considered advertising in some jurisdictions.