This doesn't make sense. The lawsuit case confirmed that a change from owner-occupied to rental or vice versa was a change in use, and therefore subject to reappraisal without the 5% annual cap.I can't give much information but I live in Maricopa county. Last month, we received a check from the Maricopa county property tax assessor office, and a separately mailed letter of explanation from a law firm who was the POC for the settled lawsuit (?). The check was made out to someone who lived at our address 20 years ago, and the property the settlement was for was not our address, but a different property in Surprise, AZ.
I phoned the tax office and was told:
- The check represented the settled amount of tax overpayment for that Surprise property. The check mailed to our address was in the amount of just over $200.
- Not all residential properties in the county were overcharged; very few of them were. The overcharged properties were not just in Surprise or the west valley. The specific property parcels and the settlement amounts were already established as part of the lawsuit and the settlement. No new ones can be added. The time frame of the overcharges was pre-2020.
- Since the check was not made out to us, please mail it back to the county tax office.
I was told that the law office who sent us the letter was the POC for all the property settlements, not the county. I realize that this does not answer your questions. It does seem like an odd way for the county to be dealing with it. Unfortunately, I do not remember the name of the law firm.
Edited: The link you posted regarding the Qasimyar lawsuit may be referring to a different lawsuit than the one mentioned in the letter we received. I do know this is not the explanation you hoped for.
Statistics: Posted by toddthebod — Tue Sep 24, 2024 7:13 pm