The California
supreme court declined to review an appeal challenging
basic property tax protections for domestic partners.
The California
supreme court declined to review an appeal challenging
basic property tax protections for domestic partners,
according to a joint statement released Thursday by
advocacy groups the National Center for Lesbian
Rights, Lambda Legal, and Equality California. The decision
is a major victory for same-sex couples because no further
appeals are possible.
"We are grateful
to the board and the legislature for protecting
same-sex couples," Shannon Minter, legal director for NCLR,
said in the release. "Today's ruling by the supreme
court ensures that this protection is secure."
"The board of
equalization has the authority to grant gay and lesbian
couples the same protections in a time of grief as everyone
else," Brian Chase, Lambda Legal senior staff
attorney, said in the statement. "No one should
lose their home after the death of a partner."
In March 2005,
Sutter and Orange counties challenged the protection in
state court while three same-sex couples along with NCLR,
Lambda Legal, Equality California, and the law firm of
Munger, Tolles, and Olson defended it.
Ultimately,
Orange County dropped out while assessors from Tehama
and Madera counties joined, but in 2006, Sacramento County
superior court judge Jack Sapunor rejected the
challenge.
The counties
appealed again in October 2007 in Strong v. Board of
Equalization, but the third district of the
California court of appeals upheld Sapunor's ruling.
Thursday, the
California supreme court denied the assessors petition to
review the case, securing the tax protection for same-sex
couples.
"We are very
pleased with the court's ruling today," Geoff Kors,
executive director of Equality California, said in the
release. "The fact that this lawsuit moved forward in
the first place further illustrates the need to grant
same-sex couples the ability to marry in California.
Then we would not have to waste time and taxpayer money to
defend these kinds of very sensible and vital protections."
(The Advocate)
Click here to follow The Advocate on Twitter.
Page 1 of 1