Property taxes ventura county records

Special Districts Division

First page G. For the most current fees and further information, contact the local recorder directly. On January 1, , California Senate Bill 2, a. The fee will address homelessness and housing shortages, and help to increase the rate of home ownership within the State by creating a Building Homes and Jobs Trust Fund to which the additional fee will be remitted.

  1. el paso texas marriage certificate.
  2. find sex offenders in your neighborhood!
  3. jasper county missouri assessor public records property sales.

Transfers subject to the documentary transfer tax as defined in Section of the Revenue and Taxation Code or on any real estate instrument, paper, or notice recorded in connection with a transfer of real property that is a residential dwelling to an owner-occupier are exempt from this fee. If you have any questions about how the Building Homes and Jobs Act affects your recording fees, please speak with a clerk with the Recorder's Office or a licensed attorney within the state.

Only the title appearing in that space will be indexed by the recorder. Kindly let us have your signature on the enclosed slip, showing you received certificate and return to us as soon as possible. The third document is Certificate No. The certificate of stock certifies that Agnes McBryant is the owner of two shares of the capital stock of Frazier Mountain Water Company and that the shares are "appurtenant to Lot 6, in Block 43, of Tract one, as per map of said Tract filed in the office of the County Recorder of Ventura County, State of California, being a subdivision of Plaintiff testified that his grandmother handed him the Guarantee of Title, the water stock certificate and the letter of transmittal at the time she delivered the quitclaim deed to him in ; the first time he saw the Guarantee of Title it was in her possession in , the water stock and letter of transmittal were first seen when delivered in McBryant paid the taxes on the property from to , and plaintiff paid them after Defendant was incorporated August 27, , for the purpose of engaging in the business of subdividing and selling [ Cal.

Its right to do business was suspended for nonpayment of franchise taxes a few years later and the corporation lay dormant until April 16, , when a trusteeship was established under the supervision of the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles. A trustee was appointed to revive and operate the corporation.

Counsel for defendant testified that the corporation's seal is missing, that most of the records of the corporation are missing, and that all of the last known officers and directors of the corporation are deceased. He testified that he had unearthed no information concerning the parcel of land in question or a conveyance to plaintiff's predecessor in interest, nor located any person with knowledge surrounding the early transactions of the corporation.

Defendant raises two questions: first, whether the secondary evidence presented by plaintiff supports the finding that plaintiff is the owner of the real property and, second, whether the three documents upon which plaintiff relies were admissible in evidence. We consider the second point first, for if the evidence was improperly admitted the judgment must be reversed.

  1. CAA e-Forms Service Center - Ventura: BOEA.
  2. Ventura County Property Tax Calculator?
  3. Ventura County, CA Property Tax Search by Address;
  4. harrison county texas death records from 2002-2006.
  5. Who Uses

Since there is no deed of record from defendant to plaintiff's grantor, his grandmother, plaintiff offered proof of the execution and delivery of an unrecorded deed. Harlow, 96 Cal. Behnke, 97 Cal. Each document was over 30 years old at the time of trial. Code of Civil Procedure section , which was then in effect, defines certain disputable presumptions, among them subdivision 34, providing: "That a document or writing more than 30 years old is genuine, when the same has been since generally acted upon as genuine, by persons having an interest in the question, and its custody has been satisfactorily explained.

Custody of the three documents was explained to the satisfaction [ Cal.

Jump to subpage...

The only requirement as to custody is that the trial judge be satisfied, and if the evidence reasonably supports his decision in this respect, we are not privileged to say the documents should not have been admitted. Evidence Code section provides: "A deed or will or other writing purporting to create, terminate or affect an interest in real or personal property is presumed to be authentic if it:. Testing the documents here by these criteria, we find that, a , they are 30 years old; b , nothing in the record casts doubt or suspicion upon the authenticity of the documents and the manner in which they came into plaintiff's hands; c , the three documents were in the hands of one likely to have them if they were authentic, namely, Mrs.

McBryant, whose name appears in both the Guarantee of Title and the stock certificate as the person holding the beneficial interest stemming from ownership of the real property involved. As to d , we first quote from a Law Revision Commission comment which tells us that "Section restates and supersedes the presumption found in subdivision 34 of Code of Civil Procedure Section Although the statement of the ancient documents rule in Section requires the document to have been acted upon as if genuine before the presumption applies, some recent cases have not insisted upon this requirement.

Estate of Nidever, Cal.

Tapo Oil Co. The requirement that the document be acted upon as genuine is, in substance, a requirement of the possession of property by those persons who would be entitled to such possession under the document if it were genuine. McBryant and he, as her successor in interest, paid real property taxes up to the date of trial, all parties concerned acted upon the deed mentioned in the Guarantee of Title and in the water stock certificate as genuine. Apparently no one has been in possession of the lot, which is located on a hillside in a mountain resort area; the evidence is that it has remained vacant and unoccupied since This is not conclusive evidence that the parties did not recognize the conveyance of , and does not render the documents inadmissible under Code of Civil Procedure section , subdivision 34; it simply presents one question of fact among several considered by the trial court in determining whether to admit the documents in evidence.

Code of Civil Procedure section provided: "Evidence respecting the handwriting may also be given by a comparison, made by the witness or the jury, with writings admitted or treated as genuine by the party against whom the evidence is offered, or proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of the judge.

L.A. County Assessor Rick Auerbach Alerts Residents To Property Tax Scam

Plaintiff obtained from the Secretary of State of the State of California a certified copy of a document entitled "Certificate of Original Creation of Bonded Indebtedness of Frazier Mountain Park and Fisheries Company," signed by the president and a majority of the directors of the corporation, and by the secretary, E. The signatures were acknowledged before a notary public and the document bears the corporation's seal.

The signature of the secretary, E. Patterson, and the seal of the corporation correspond to the signature and the seal upon the Guarantee of Title and upon the Frazier Mountain Water Company stock certificate. Defendant seems to take the position that a comparison of handwriting, here the signatures of E. Patterson, must be made by a witness, preferably a handwriting expert. Section does not impose such a restriction; it provides that a comparison may be made by a witness "or the jury.

In any event, the concluding clause reads, "or proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of the judge. Certainly an official document certified by the Secretary of State qualifies as a writing purporting to be genuine, and it may be used to compare a signature thereon with a similar signature on another document 30 years old. The four documents which the trial judge had before him are before us on this appeal. We cannot say the trial court erred in concluding that the signature, "E. Patterson," appearing on the Certificate of Original Creation of Bonded Indebtedness on file in the office of the Secretary of State, is the same signature as the "E.

Patterson" appearing on the Guarantee of Title, the Certificate No. This brings us to appellant's second point, that the evidence is insufficient to support the findings and the judgment. The principal contention is, of course, that there is no proof that defendant corporation delivered a deed to plaintiff's grantor, his grandmother, Agnes McBryant.

Empire Star Mines Co.

Lower Your Property Taxes, California Assessment Appeals- TAC

Thus, the Guarantee of Title, which recites that defendant has issued a deed to the property to Mrs. McBryant, is sufficient to support the trial court's finding that title was vested in Agnes McBryant at the time she executed a deed to plaintiff. As we read the document it provides that a deed was issued on the date specified in the Guarantee of Title, namely, November 2, , but that the guarantee does not become effective until the deed is recorded. In short, the company did not assume the burden of guaranteeing an unrecorded title, which is normal procedure in any guarantee of title.

This condition limiting liability does not negate the statement [ Cal. McBryant on November 2, , is bolstered by the letter of transmittal mailed a month and a half later to her by defendant corporation, forwarding certificate No.


The certificate reads, in part:. The stock certificate appurtenant to Lot 6, Block 43, of Tract one, is dated November 29, , or 27 days after the deed referred to in the guarantee. It is signed by E.

Patterson, secretary, as well as by the president of the corporation, and bears the corporation's seal. Thus the corporation, by its Guarantee of Title and the certificate of water stock, recognized in that Mrs. McBryant was the owner of the lot in question. The description in the deed from Mrs. McBryant to plaintiff shows the property is situated in Kern County. But the county in which the land is situated does not appear to us to be the critical issue; rather, the heart of the case lies in whether defendant, in fact, delivered a deed to Mrs.


If so, it is clear that defendant intended to convey to Mrs. A different and more serious question would confront us were the rights of innocent third parties involved. We are in agreement with the trial judge that the deed was delivered and that defendant intended to convey to Mrs.

McBryant the particular lot without regard to whether it was, at that time, in Kern County or in Ventura County. So we pass to the secondary question of the county in which the lot conveyed by defendant to Mrs. McBryant is located. Plaintiff testified that his grandmother told him there was an uncertainty as to the location of the Ventura-Kern County line in the area, which culminated in a dispute between the counties, and when the controversy was resolved it was determined that the lot she owned was in Kern County.

Counsel for defendant argues with some force and eloquence that this is hearsay evidence, and that title to real property should not rest upon such attenuated proof. Powers v. Board of Public Works Cal.