The Retail Property Trust v. Orange County Assessment etc.

── The Retail Property Trust v. Orange County Assessment etc. ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: April 15, 2026 Category: General Filed 4/15/26 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE THE RETAIL PROPERTY TRUST, Plaintiff and Appellant, G064887 v. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2023- 01311339) ORANGE COUNTY ASSESSMENT APPEALS BOARD NO. 1, OPINION Defendant and Respondent; COUNTY OF ORANGE, Real Party in Interest and Respondent. Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Nathan R. Scott, Judge. Affirmed. Appellant’s Request for Judicial Notice. Denied. Respondent’s Request for Judicial Notice. Denied. Vallejo, Antolin, Agarwal & Kanter, Peter B. Kanter and Matthew J. Rilla, for Plaintiff and Appellant.  No appearance for Defendant and Respondent. Leon J. Page, County Counsel, D. Kevin Dunn and Daniel L. Richards, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest and Respondent. * * * Plaintiff The Retail Property Trust owns the Brea Mall in the city of Brea (the property).1 As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic (the pandemic), access to the property was substantially restricted due to governmental orders and the Governor’s proclamation of a state of emergency issued on March 4, 2020 as to all counties. As a result of those restrictions, plaintiff filed applications with the Orange County tax assessor (the assessor) seeking tax disaster relief under Revenue and Taxation Code section 170, subdivision (a)(1) (Calamity Applications).2 Plaintiff sought to have the property reassessed on the ground it had been damaged as a result of the pandemic. The assessor summarily denied the Calamity Applications, and in response to plaintiff’s administrative appeal, respondent Orange County Assessment Appeals Board No. 1 (the Board) upheld the assessor’s decision. Plaintiff then sought relief from the trial court. Following a court trial, the trial court ruled plaintiff was not entitled to relief under section 170(a)(1) as a matter of law. We agree with the trial court’s conclusion and affirm the judgment. 1 The property consists of an approximately 40-acre site with an enclosed shopping mall and associated improvements. 2 Section 170, subdivision (a)(1), is hereafter referred to as section 170(a)(1). 2  FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY I. BACKGROUND RELATING TO THE CALAMITY APPLICATIONS During the time period relevant to its Calamity Applications, plaintiff owned and leased the property. During the 2019–2020 and 2020– 2021 assessment years, plaintiff paid property taxes assessed by the assessor for its property. On March 4, 2020, pursuant to Government Code sections 8625 and 8558, subdivision (b), the Governor of California declared the entire state was in a state of emergency due to the pandemic. As a result, the property was closed to the public beginning on or around March 19, 2020. Ultimately, the property was ordered closed for more than 100 days. Even after restrictions were eased and limited access was allowed, the property was still subject to significant restrictions on access, operations, occupancy, and use due to the persistence of the pandemic in the area. According to plaintiff, such restricted access included, but was not limited to, full and partial closures of the property; full and partial closures of businesses operating within the property; restrictions on the number of people allowed on the property and within businesses that operated on the property; and restrictions on the operating hours of the p