Bellosguardo Foundation Sues County Alleging It Should Be Exempt From Property Taxes

One of Santa Barbara's most storied waterfront properties is now the subject of a legal fight over money. The Bellosguardo Foundation, the nonprofit that operates the historic Clark Estate overlooking East Cabrillo Boulevard, has sued Santa Barbara County in Superior Court, arguing the estate should be exempt from property taxes and demanding a refund of more than $1.1 million in taxes it paid for 2023 and 2024 — with interest on top.

The lawsuit, filed in Santa Barbara County Superior Court in September 2026 and first reported by Noozhawk, asks a judge to declare that the estate at 1407 E. Cabrillo Blvd. qualifies for California's "welfare exemption," which spares properties owned by eligible nonprofits and used for religious, hospital, or charitable purposes from property taxes. The foundation says it operates the estate "exclusively" as a public museum that is "open and accessible to all members of the public."

At stake is a significant sum for both the foundation and county coffers. Court records show the foundation paid $586,728.12 in property taxes for 2023 and $597,539.96 for 2024 — money it now wants back. Public records indicate the foundation has paid upward of $450,000 annually in property taxes since taking ownership of the estate in 2012, meaning the total disputed across all tax years could grow well beyond the $1.1 million named in the suit.

How the Dispute Unfolded

The path to court ran through the county's claims process. According to court documents cited by Noozhawk, the county denied the foundation's refund request in March. In its refund claim letters for both tax years, foundation director Jeremy Lindaman wrote that the taxes were "erroneously and illegally collected" because the county assessor "failed to apply the welfare exemption to the Property for those tax years even though the Taxpayer was using the Property for an exempt purpose."

The foundation says it holds an Organizational Clearance Certificate from the California Board of Equalization, a prerequisite for the welfare exemption.

County spokeswoman Kelsey Gerckens Buttitta said the county does not comment on pending litigation, and the county had not yet filed a formal response to the lawsuit as of Noozhawk's report. The case is scheduled for a management conference in Superior Court in January.

The dispute may not end with two tax years. Gregory Broege, an attorney for the foundation, told Noozhawk the organization also filed refund claims covering taxable years before 2023, which he said have been neither approved nor denied by the county. He said he did not immediately know whether an exemption request had been filed for the 2025 tax year.

A Reclusive Heiress and a Sleeping Estate

The legal fight is the latest chapter in the long, unusual story of Bellosguardo. The estate — a city landmark built by copper-mining heiress Huguette Clark's family in the 1930s — includes a mansion, a cottage, a carriage house, and gardens on a prime stretch of the Santa Barbara waterfront. Clark owned the property until her death in 2011 at age 104, having reportedly not visited since the 1950s. The estate was actively used for only about 15 months after it was built.

In her will, Clark bequeathed the property to a nonprofit foundation to foster the arts, along with a valuable doll collection and millions of dollars in cash. The Bellosguardo Foundation took over roughly 15 years ago, but the estate sat largely closed to the public for years afterward, hosting occasional private events.

That changed in late 2022, when the foundation began offering small, docent-led public tours — an opening that docents described as "like an undiscovered museum was dropped on the West Coast," as Noozhawk reported. Those early tours were held without city permits. In late 2025, the Santa Barbara Planning Commission approved permits for the tours, with conditions: within two years, the foundation must return with participation in the Museums for All program or an equivalent, to provide lower-cost access to the property.

The Public-Access Question

Whether the estate truly functions as a museum open to all is likely to be central to the case — and it's a fair question for local residents. Tours today typically cost $100 per person, a price point that has drawn scrutiny in a community accustomed to free or low-cost access to public institutions like the Santa Barbara Museum of Art and the Museum of Natural History. The foundation also hosts ticketed special events, including performances and programs such as an upcoming "Drinking Wine in Ancient Greece" event, which pairs a self-guided estate tour with a talk by UC Santa Barbara professor John W.I. Lee for $125.

The foundation's lawsuit asserts that the property's museum use is exclusive and public, while the county's assessor, by denying the exemption, has effectively taken a different view of how the estate is being used. California's welfare exemption turns both on the owner's nonprofit status and on the property's actual use — a factual question the Superior Court may now be asked to sort through.

What Comes Next

For now, the litigation is in its early stages. The county has yet to respond in court, and a case management conference is set for January, which will begin mapping out a timeline for briefing and, potentially, trial. Depending on how the court rules — and how the county handles the foundation's older, still-pending refund claims — the case could affect hundreds of thousands of dollars in annual property tax revenue, money that flows into local government budgets.

For Santa Barbara residents, the case carries a double significance. It will help determine whether one of the city's most remarkable properties — closed to the world for decades — continues its transformation into a genuine public resource. And it will test how the promise Huguette Clark made in her will, of an arts foundation serving the public, squares with the tax obligations that come with operating on some of the most valuable real estate on the Central Coast.