Opinion ID: 1155601
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Lower-court Rulings

Text: The trial court found that the DMV's employment of a method to compute the vehicle license fees and use taxes due on vehicles originally purchased outside California which differed from the method used for vehicles originally purchased within the state, resulted in the imposition of significantly higher fees and taxes on vehicles purchased outside the state. The court held that this practice violated applicable state statutes and regulations, as well as the commerce clause of the federal Constitution and the equal protection clauses of the state and federal Constitutions. With regard to vehicle license fees, this practice began in 1967 and continues to the present time as to vehicles first registered before 1983 or sold as used vehicles prior to June 30, 1991, although, as described above, recent legislation has eliminated the different treatment for vehicles sold after June 30, 1991, as used. With regard to use taxes, however, the different treatment ended in November 1976, when the DMV adopted its new policy of basing the use tax as to all vehicles on their actual cost. The trial court further held that the November 1976 agreement between the SBE and the DMV to begin basing the use tax for all vehicles on their actual cost was invalid, because the agreement was not adopted as a formal regulation in compliance with the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act. (Gov. Code, § 11340 et seq.) Subsequently, the trial court resolved the previously bifurcated class-certification issues by certifying two classes. One of these classes consists of [a]ll persons in the State of California who from within three years prior to October 20, 1977 [when Woosley mailed his initial claim for refund] [14] to the date of the refund, were charged and paid more vehicle license fees or use taxes for registration of vehicles previously registered or titled outside of the State of California because those fees or taxes were based on the actual cost of those vehicles rather than on the statutorily presumed price.... [15] The trial court found that approximately 2.8 million persons are included within this class. The other class consists of all persons who, since November 1976, have paid higher use taxes on vehicles because of the DMV's decision to begin basing the calculation of such taxes for all vehicles on the actual cost of the vehicle. The trial court found that approximately 14 million persons are included within this class. The court awarded $13.7 million to counsel for the class as attorney fees, and $1 million in fees to Woosley, who is an attorney, for services rendered as class representative, directing that both sums be paid from the common fund recovered. ( Serrano v. Priest (1977) 20 Cal.3d 25, 35 [141 Cal. Rptr. 315, 569 P.2d 1303].) The state appealed. Woosley in his individual capacity also appealed, contending the trial court erroneously denied him attorney fees for the legal assistance he rendered to the class and compensated him solely as class representative. The Court of Appeal consolidated the two appeals, affirmed the judgment on the principal appeal, and vacated the award of fees to Woosley, remanding the matter for a hearing as to whether Woosley is entitled to an award of fees for his legal services. We granted the state's petition for review, specifying that [t]he issues to be argued before this court shall be limited to those addressed in the published portion of the Court of Appeal opinion. We thereby excluded from consideration by this court the question whether Woosley had exhausted his administrative remedies, as well as a number of other peripheral issues. By subsequent order, we granted Woosley's request to expand the scope of our review to include the issue whether the practices followed by the state violated the equal-protection clauses of the federal and state Constitutions.