{"id":170,"date":"2026-04-15T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-04-15T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=170"},"modified":"2026-04-15T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-04-15T12:00:00","slug":"retail-property-trust-orange-county-covid-19-pandemic-section-170-tax-relief","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=170","title":{"rendered":"The Retail Property Trust v. Orange County Assessment Appeals Board \u2014 COVID-19 Pandemic Restrictions Did Not Cause “Damage” Triggering Tax Reassessment Under Section 170"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Case<\/dt>\n
The Retail Property Trust v. Orange County Assessment Appeals Board No. 1<\/dd>\n
Court<\/dt>\n
4th District Court of Appeal, Division Three<\/dd>\n
Date Decided<\/dt>\n
2026-04-15<\/dd>\n
Docket No.<\/dt>\n
G064887<\/dd>\n
Status<\/dt>\n
Reported \/ Citable<\/dd>\n
Topics<\/dt>\n
Property tax; Revenue and Taxation Code section 170; calamity reassessment; COVID-19 pandemic; Orange County Assessment Appeals Board<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

The Retail Property Trust owns the Brea Mall in Brea, California. After Governor Newsom declared a state of emergency on March 4, 2020 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the mall was closed to the public starting around March 19, 2020. The property remained closed or subject to restrictions on access, operations, occupancy, and use for more than 100 days, with significant ongoing restrictions thereafter.<\/p>\n

In March 2021, the property owner filed Calamity Applications with the Orange County tax assessor under Revenue and Taxation Code section 170(a)(1), which authorizes property tax reassessment when property is damaged or destroyed by a calamity. The owner argued that the pandemic and resulting government restrictions had effectively damaged the property by stripping it of its operational value. The assessor summarily denied the applications on the grounds that there was no physical damage to the property.<\/p>\n

The owner appealed to the Orange County Assessment Appeals Board, which agreed it had jurisdiction but ruled in favor of the assessor on the merits. The Board concluded that section 170 requires actual physical damage and that the pandemic’s economic effects, however severe, did not satisfy that requirement. The trial court agreed, and the property owner appealed.<\/p>\n

The Court’s Holding<\/h2>\n

The Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division Three, affirmed. The court held that Revenue and Taxation Code section 170(a)(1) requires actual physical damage to property as a prerequisite for calamity reassessment. The pandemic and resulting government restrictions on access and operations did not cause physical damage and therefore did not entitle the property owner to tax relief.<\/p>\n

Section 170 implements article XIII, section 15 of the California Constitution, which authorizes reassessment of property damaged or destroyed by a calamity. The constitutional and statutory framework consistently uses the language of damage and destruction in physical terms. The Constitution’s text, contemporaneous understanding, and consistent administrative interpretation all support the conclusion that purely economic harm from external events such as governmental shutdown orders does not constitute damage within the meaning of section 170.<\/p>\n

The court rejected the owner’s argument that the COVID-19 virus itself could be considered to have caused indirect physical damage by contaminating surfaces or rendering the property unusable. The legislative and constitutional framework distinguishes between physical damage to property (which triggers section 170 relief) and changes in market conditions or use restrictions (which do not). Pandemic-driven economic harm, like other forms of economic loss, is addressed through other property tax mechanisms such as Proposition 8 declines in value or general appeals of the assessed value, not through calamity reassessment.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n