Wednesday, May 13, 2026
Page 1
C.A. Says Tax Challenge ‘Arises From’ Protected Speech of County Assessor
Opinion Says Citation to Official’s Words to Support Claims That Locality Is Targeting Middle-Income Housing Projects Is Sufficient to Meet First Step of SLAPP Analysis
By a MetNews Staff Writer
Div. Three of the Fourth District Court of Appeal has held that a trial judge erred in denying an anti-SLAPP motion filed by Orange County in an action accusing it of wrongly targeting the private administrator of middle-income housing units, in which the company has no ownership interest, for property taxation under a statutory “possessory interest” qualification because the buildings are wholly-owned by tax-exempt joint power authorities.
Rejecting the view that the lawsuit was about taxation and not speech or other activities protected by California’s anti-SLAPP statute, the court said that the plaintiff “relies almost entirely upon…protected speech, advocacy, and petitioning” activities by Orange County Assessor Claude Parrish, who allegedly said that “middle income” housing should not benefit from tax breaks.
Justice Maurice Sanchez authored the opinion, which was filed April 14 and certified for publication on Monday, saying that “the California Constitution protects the free speech of government entities and public officials” and that such activities “are within the scope” of the anti-SLAPP statute, found at Code of Civil Procedure §425.16.
The question arose after Waterford Property Company, a real estate development firm, filed a complaint against the county in May 2024, seeking a declaration that “neither it nor its tenants should be held liable for property taxes” on the properties it manages for joint power authorities.
New Attack
In the pleading, the plaintiff asserted that “[t]his case involves a new type of attack” on programs designed to provide discounted housing to the middle class, saying:
“As part of an effort to address California’s shortage of affordable housing, local governments…have responded by looking for new ways to finance the production of Workforce Housing. One tool they have come up with is the issuance of governmental revenue bonds to acquire existing apartment buildings and deed restrict them to households making between 50% and 120% of the area median income.”
Waterford continued:
“The most prolific governmental agencies in this space since 2020 have been [joint power authorities (‘JPA’)]. The JPA, working with local governments and real estate companies, purchase…existing apartment buildings with a goal of providing housing for households that make too much to qualify for ‘low’ income housing….The overall effect is that [middle income] workers…are able to obtain affordable rents and achieve significant rental savings.”
Asserting that it is the “Project Administrator” on 15 properties across the state on behalf of the California Statewide Community Development Authority (“CSCDA”), which wholly owns the buildings, the company said that “Orange County Assessor…Claude Parrish has launched a full frontal assault” by asserting that the plaintiff is liable for a “possessory interest tax,” which would “eliminate all rental savings to the tenants.”
Rant Against Projects
Specifically, the plaintiff pointed to a December 2022 meeting in which Parrish allegedly “ranted” against such projects and said that, even though Waterford had no recognized ownership interest in the apartments at issue, he would treat them like owners since the CSCDA was exempt from taxation.
Waterford also cited an opinion piece authored by Parrish and published in The Orange County Register in April 2024, which responded to an editorial by Lucy Dunn critical of his efforts to assert a “possessory interest tax” on the new “middle class” housing units, as well as asserted advocacy efforts seeking to convince other officials throughout the state to follow his example.
According to the plaintiff, in 2023, Parrish announced that he had issued possessory interest assessments to the operators of nine out of the ten JPA-owned properties in the county based on the net income each derived from the real estate. Waterford initially challenged the assessment against it before an administrative appeals board but that matter was stayed after it filed the operative complaint.
Orange Superior Court Judge Shawn Nelson denied the county’s anti-SLAPP motion in October 2024. Acting Presiding Justice Eileen C. Moore and Justice Martha K. Gooding joined in the opinion reversing the denial.
Anti-SLAPP Statute
Sec. 425.16 provides:
“A cause of action against a person arising from any act of that person in furtherance of the person’s right of petition or free speech…in connection with a public issue shall be subject to a special motion to strike, unless the court determines that the plaintiff has established that there is a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim.”
Subdivision (e) defines protected activities as any “statement or writing made before…any…official proceeding,” “made in connection with an issue under consideration or review by a legislative, executive, or judicial body,” or asserted in a place open to the public or a public forum in connection with an issue of public interest.”
Rejecting the plaintiff’s view that the “Assessor’s actions—seeking to impose a property tax on Waterford—are merely ministerial and do not arise from any protected activity,” Sanchez said:
“Waterford is improperly conflating the ‘elements’ of the underlying dispute between the parties with the elements of a claim for declaratory relief, a position which has been rejected in similar cases.”
Alleged Vendetta
Commenting that Waterford has made allegations of a “vendetta” against the middle-income housing programs, making “declaratory relief…necessary” to protect the right of other project administrators, he continued:
“Here, in claiming it is entitled to declaratory relief, Waterford relies almost entirely upon Assessor’s protected speech, advocacy, and petitioning. First, Waterford relies on statements by Assessor, including speaking at a public hearing…, writing an opinion piece…, speaking by phone to Waterford’s controller regarding assessing property taxes against Waterford, and meeting with Waterford’s principals and former Orange County Supervisor Lisa Bartlett to discuss these issues. This type of speech is protected under section 425.16….”
Saying that the plaintiff also “relies on Assessor’s protected advocacy and petitioning on matters of public interest,” he opined:
“Urging a public official to perform an official duty is the very essence of petitioning the government for redress of grievances, and is thus protected under section.”
The jurist added:
“Moreover, the issuance of tax bills and liens for unpaid taxes constitute writings ‘made in connection with an issue under consideration or review by a[n] . . . executive . . . body’ within the meaning of section 426.16….”
Sanchez wrote:
“Because the trial court found Waterford’s claim did not arise from protected activity, it did not perform the analysis required to determine whether Waterford met its burden of establishing a probability of prevailing on its claim under the second prong. We therefore remand the matter for the court to resolve that question in the first instance.”
The case is Waterford Property Company v. County of Orange, 2026 S.O.S. 1311.
Copyright 2026, Metropolitan News Company