verified claim in California

1959(Citations.) ’ ’ In Whitson v. LaPay, 153 Cal.App.2d 584, 590 [ 315 P.2d 45 ], it is held that “The filing of an unverified claim is not a substantial compliance with a statute or ordinance requiring the filing of a verified claim (Spencer v. City of Calipatria, 9 Cal.App.2d 267, 269 [ 49 P.2d 320 ] ; Cooper v. County of Butte, 17 Cal.App.2d 43, 47 [ 61 P.2d 516 ]) and the doctrine of substantial compliance is not applicable to a claim which fails to state the claimant’s address where the statute or ordinance so requires.

1959(Citations.) ’ ’ In Whitson v. LaPay, 153 Cal.App.2d 584, 590 [ 315 P.2d 45 ], it is held that “The filing of an unverified claim is not a substantial compliance with a statute or ordinance requiring the filing of a verified claim (Spencer v. City of Calipatria, 9 Cal.App.2d 267, 269 [ 49 P.2d 320 ] ; Cooper v. County of Butte, 17 Cal.App.2d 43, 47 [ 61 P.2d 516 ]) and the doctrine of substantial compliance is not applicable to a claim which fails to state the claimant’s address where the statute or ordinance so requires.

1959(Citations.) ’ ’ In Whitson v. LaPay, 153 Cal.App.2d 584, 590 [ 315 P.2d 45 ], it is held that “The filing of an unverified claim is not a substantial compliance with a statute or ordinance requiring the filing of a verified claim (Spencer v. City of Calipatria, 9 Cal.App.2d 267, 269 [ 49 P.2d 320 ] ; Cooper v. County of Butte, 17 Cal.App.2d 43, 47 [ 61 P.2d 516 ]) and the doctrine of substantial compliance is not applicable to a claim which fails to state the claimant’s address where the statute or ordinance so requires.

1959(Citations.) ’ ’ In Whitson v. LaPay, 153 Cal.App.2d 584, 590 [ 315 P.2d 45 ], it is held that “The filing of an unverified claim is not a substantial compliance with a statute or ordinance requiring the filing of a verified claim (Spencer v. City of Calipatria, 9 Cal.App.2d 267, 269 [ 49 P.2d 320 ] ; Cooper v. County of Butte, 17 Cal.App.2d 43, 47 [ 61 P.2d 516 ]) and the doctrine of substantial compliance is not applicable to a claim which fails to state the claimant’s address where the statute or ordinance so requires.

1947Laws, 1937, Act 5149, § 1, p. 2204; Johnson v. City of Glendale, 12 Cal.App.2d 389, 393 [ 55 P.2d 580 ].) Plaintiff’s claim was made on a form of demand furnished by defendant and was duly verified.

1942Laws, 1937, p. 2630, Stats. 1923, p. 675; see Johnson v. City of Glendale (1936), supra, 12 Cal. App. (2d) 392-393 [ 55 Pac. (2d) 580]); it purports to declare the limitation applicable “whenever” any person claims damages against a municipality arising out of the defective condition of “any” public street, highway, building, etc. To uphold respondent’s position we should, in effect, have to write into that law words of limitation and exception making it read, *245 “Only when it is claimed that any person has been injured ... as a result of the dangerous or defective condition of any public st

1986Dist. (1941) 19 Cal.2d 123, 126 [ 119 P.2d 717 ].) In the Powers Farms case the plaintiff brought an action against an irrigation district for damage to its property without first filing a verified claim with the district as required by the Irrigation District Liability Law (Stats. 1935, ch. 833, p. 2250).

1986Dist. (1941) 19 Cal.2d 123, 126 [ 119 P.2d 717 ].) In the Powers Farms case the plaintiff brought an action against an irrigation district for damage to its property without first filing a verified claim with the district as required by the Irrigation District Liability Law (Stats. 1935, ch. 833, p. 2250).

1965In Redlands etc. School Dist. v. Superior Court, 20 Cal.2d 348 [ 125 P.2d 490 ], our Supreme Court reviewed a judgment claimed to have been rendered in excess of the trial court’s *320 jurisdiction because of plaintiff’s failure to comply with a statutory requirement respecting the filing of a verified claim.

1965In Redlands etc. School Dist. v. Superior Court, 20 Cal.2d 348 [ 125 P.2d 490 ], our Supreme Court reviewed a judgment claimed to have been rendered in excess of the trial court’s *320 jurisdiction because of plaintiff’s failure to comply with a statutory requirement respecting the filing of a verified claim.

1950In Eppstein v. City of Berkeley, 52 Cal.App.2d 395 [ 126 P.2d 365 ], the address of the claimant was not included in the verified claim, and in Hall v. City of Los Angeles, 19 Cal.2d 198 [ 120 P.2d 13 ], there was no statement of the place where the accident occurred.

1950In Eppstein v. City of Berkeley, 52 Cal.App.2d 395 [ 126 P.2d 365 ], the address of the claimant was not included in the verified claim, and in Hall v. City of Los Angeles, 19 Cal.2d 198 [ 120 P.2d 13 ], there was no statement of the place where the accident occurred.

2021And, section 5142, subdivision (a) provides that a court action may not “be commenced or maintained . . . unless a claim for refund has first been filed pursuant to Article 1 (commencing with Section 5096),” and “[n]o recovery shall be allowed in any refund action upon any ground not specified in the refund claim.” (See Steinhart, supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 1307 .) 13 In light of these statutes, our Supreme Court has explained that in the property tax context, “application of the exhaustion principle means that a taxpayer ordinarily may not file or pursue a court action for a tax refund without f

2021And, section 5142, subdivision (a) provides that a court action may not “be commenced or maintained . . . unless a claim for refund has first been filed pursuant to Article 1 (commencing with Section 5096),” and “[n]o recovery shall be allowed in any refund action upon any ground not specified in the refund claim.” (See Steinhart, supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 1307 .) 13 In light of these statutes, our Supreme Court has explained that in the property tax context, “application of the exhaustion principle means that a taxpayer ordinarily may not file or pursue a court action for a tax refund without f

1991Under the statutory scheme, title to the forfeited property vests in the state from the time of the illegal conduct (§ 11470, subd. (h)), subject to the proviso that any person claiming an interest in the property may file a verified claim in superior court within the time provided. (§ 11488.5.) (People v. Fifteen Thousand Two Hundred Seventeen Dollars (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 720, 723 [ 268 Cal.Rptr. 450 ].) Section 11488 permits a peace officer, incident or subsequent to making an arrest for specified controlled substance offenses, to seize any item subject to forfeiture.

1991Under the statutory scheme, title to the forfeited property vests in the state from the time of the illegal conduct (§ 11470, subd. (h)), subject to the proviso that any person claiming an interest in the property may file a verified claim in superior court within the time provided. (§ 11488.5.) (People v. Fifteen Thousand Two Hundred Seventeen Dollars (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 720, 723 [ 268 Cal.Rptr. 450 ].) Section 11488 permits a peace officer, incident or subsequent to making an arrest for specified controlled substance offenses, to seize any item subject to forfeiture.

1961See Ansell v. City of San Diego, 35 Cal.2d 76 [ 216 P.2d 455 ], in reference to filing a verified claim with the officer.

1961See Ansell v. City of San Diego, 35 Cal.2d 76 [ 216 P.2d 455 ], in reference to filing a verified claim with the officer.

1956That such a claim must be verified is a reasonable provision which should not be held to be ineffectual and meaningless.” A discussion of this case in Douglass v. City of Los Angeles, supra, ends with this statement, at page 129: “The holding therein made is hereby declared to be the law in all cases coming within its purview.” Hall v. City of Los Angeles, supra, says at page 203: “The holding of the Spencer case was expressly approved by the Supreme Court in Douglass v. City of Los Angeles, 5 Cal.2d 123 [ 53 P.2d 353 ], and was declared to be the law in all eases coming within its purview.” N

1936There is no direct provision in the statute requiring the filing of such claim as a condition precedent to commencement of such action (Norton v. City of Pomona, 5 Cal. (2d) 54 [ 53 Pac. (2d) 952 ]), but in Douglass v. City of Los Angeles, 5 Cal. (2d) 123 [ 53 Pac. (2d) 353 ], the Supreme Court held that “one of the requirements of the general statute since 1931 has been that as a prerequisite to suit to enforce such liability against a city, the claimant must have filed with the clerk of the legislative body of the city ... a verified claim for damages.” The purpose of the act is the protecti

2013Proc., § 475.) 14. in Exhibit One (1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 1, 6 [“district attorney provides the requisite notice”].) Nevertheless, and significantly so, the issue of the propriety of notice has never been before us.7 Notably, however, in People v. $ 400, supra, 17 Cal.App.4th 1615 , we considered whether a trial court abused its discretion by granting a motion to strike an answer to a forfeiture complaint where the forfeiture statutes require only a verified claim.

2013Proc., § 475.) 14. in Exhibit One (1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 1, 6 [“district attorney provides the requisite notice”].) Nevertheless, and significantly so, the issue of the propriety of notice has never been before us.7 Notably, however, in People v. $ 400, supra, 17 Cal.App.4th 1615 , we considered whether a trial court abused its discretion by granting a motion to strike an answer to a forfeiture complaint where the forfeiture statutes require only a verified claim.

2013(People v. $10,153.38 in United States Currency (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 1520, 1525-1526 [ 102 Cal.Rptr.3d 584 ]; People v. $28,500 United States Currency (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 447, 463 [ 59 Cal.Rptr.2d 239 ].) “This disfavor applies ‘notwithstanding the strong governmental interest in stemming illegal drug transactions . . . .’ ” (People v. $10,153.38 in United States Currency, supra, at p. 1526, quoting People v. Ten $500 etc. Traveler’s Checks (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 475, 479 [ 20 Cal.Rptr.2d 128 ].) II.

2013(People v. $10,153.38 in United States Currency (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 1520, 1525-1526 [ 102 Cal.Rptr.3d 584 ]; People v. $28,500 United States Currency (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 447, 463 [ 59 Cal.Rptr.2d 239 ].) “This disfavor applies ‘notwithstanding the strong governmental interest in stemming illegal drug transactions . . . .’ ” (People v. $10,153.38 in United States Currency, supra, at p. 1526, quoting People v. Ten $500 etc. Traveler’s Checks (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 475, 479 [ 20 Cal.Rptr.2d 128 ].) II.

2013(People v. $10,153.38 in United States Currency (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 1520, 1525-1526 [ 102 Cal.Rptr.3d 584 ]; People v. $28,500 United States Currency (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 447, 463 [ 59 Cal.Rptr.2d 239 ].) “This disfavor applies ‘notwithstanding the strong governmental interest in stemming illegal drug transactions . . . .’ ” (People v. $10,153.38 in United States Currency, supra, at p. 1526, quoting People v. Ten $500 etc. Traveler’s Checks (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 475, 479 [ 20 Cal.Rptr.2d 128 ].) II.

2013(People v. $10,153.38 in United States Currency (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 1520, 1525-1526 [ 102 Cal.Rptr.3d 584 ]; People v. $28,500 United States Currency (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 447, 463 [ 59 Cal.Rptr.2d 239 ].) “This disfavor applies ‘notwithstanding the strong governmental interest in stemming illegal drug transactions . . . .’ ” (People v. $10,153.38 in United States Currency, supra, at p. 1526, quoting People v. Ten $500 etc. Traveler’s Checks (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 475, 479 [ 20 Cal.Rptr.2d 128 ].) II.

2013(People v. $10,153.38 in United States Currency (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 1520, 1525-1526 [ 102 Cal.Rptr.3d 584 ]; People v. $28,500 United States Currency (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 447, 463 [ 59 Cal.Rptr.2d 239 ].) “This disfavor applies ‘notwithstanding the strong governmental interest in stemming illegal drug transactions . . . .’ ” (People v. $10,153.38 in United States Currency, supra, at p. 1526, quoting People v. Ten $500 etc. Traveler’s Checks (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 475, 479 [ 20 Cal.Rptr.2d 128 ].) II.

2013(People v. $10,153.38 in United States Currency (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 1520, 1525-1526 [ 102 Cal.Rptr.3d 584 ]; People v. $28,500 United States Currency (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 447, 463 [ 59 Cal.Rptr.2d 239 ].) “This disfavor applies ‘notwithstanding the strong governmental interest in stemming illegal drug transactions . . . .’ ” (People v. $10,153.38 in United States Currency, supra, at p. 1526, quoting People v. Ten $500 etc. Traveler’s Checks (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 475, 479 [ 20 Cal.Rptr.2d 128 ].) II.

1957Co., 28 Cal.App.2d 215 [ 82 P.2d 216 ] ; Peters v. City & County of San Francisco, 41 Cal.2d 419 [ 260 P.2d 55 ] ; Sayre v. El Dorado etc. School Dist., 97 Cal.App.2d 333 [ 217 P.2d 713 ] ; and Kelso v. Board of Education, 42 Cal.App.2d 415 [ 109 P.2d 29 ], In all of these cases it appears that a verified claim was filed with some officer of the city or district, or filed and called to the attention of the proper officer within time, or that no question with respect to the filing of a verified claim was raised.

1957Co., 28 Cal.App.2d 215 [ 82 P.2d 216 ] ; Peters v. City & County of San Francisco, 41 Cal.2d 419 [ 260 P.2d 55 ] ; Sayre v. El Dorado etc. School Dist., 97 Cal.App.2d 333 [ 217 P.2d 713 ] ; and Kelso v. Board of Education, 42 Cal.App.2d 415 [ 109 P.2d 29 ], In all of these cases it appears that a verified claim was filed with some officer of the city or district, or filed and called to the attention of the proper officer within time, or that no question with respect to the filing of a verified claim was raised.

1966In Parodi v. City & County of San Francisco, 160 Cal.App.2d 577 [ 325 P.2d 224 ], this court found substantial compliance although the claim referred to the wrong intersection.

1966In Parodi v. City & County of San Francisco, 160 Cal.App.2d 577 [ 325 P.2d 224 ], this court found substantial compliance although the claim referred to the wrong intersection.