Recent Developments in Eminent Domain Case Law Regina Danner, ESQ Richards, Watson & Gershon
Property owner sought to establish right to an irrevocable license for an uninterrupted right to continue to maintain landscaping and improvements
A license is authority to do a certain act or acts upon another s land, with full knowledge of the facts, and may be implied from the relationship of the parties and from usage and custom. An equitable easement requires the party to be innocent in their encroachment.
Appellants failed to object to the landscaping and other improvements for 6 years. The previous owners allowed it for 14 years. Court held that there was ample evidence to conclude that adequate and sufficient permission was granted by appellants to allow respondents to maintain the landscaping improvements.
For the license to be irrevocable, there must be substantial expenditures in reliance on the license. While no evidence of specific dollar amounts expended was introduced, the court found sufficient information was provided to allow the court to infer that the costs were substantial.
Court deemed that the license was irrevocable in perpetuity. Court upheld this determination based on the substantial investment in time and money and permanent nature of the improvements.
Did the City violate CEQA by committing to the project prior to completion of the EIR?
Senate Bill 743 added section 21168.6.6 Modified several CEQA deadlines specifically for the project to build the downtown arena in Sacramento
Did not change CEQA standards for the required content of the EIR or the approval for the project. Provided an accelerated timeline of events along with provisions intended to facilitate expedited CEQA review. Required the Judicial Council to adopt a rule to facilitate completion of judicial review within 270 days.
The property owner contended that the city committed itself to the downtown arena project before completing its review under CEQA. City had already entered into an agreement with the NBA to build the arena.
Although the City took steps toward planning the proposed downtown arena prior to completing its environmental review, the record does not establish premature commitment to the project in violation of CEQA. Project alternatives considered by the City. The City s EIR analysis of traffic congestion on I-5 was not deficient under CEQA. Property did not meet her burden to show how the issue of crowd safety at the downtown arena constitutes a matter for CEQA review.
Public agency can introduce evidence of future, contingent events that could potentially affect the amount of just compensation
Property owner s appeal was based on evidence introduced by the Agency regarding future access. He claimed that evidence was speculative. Property owner also claimed it was error to allow the Agency s appraiser to critique his appraiser s valuation of the property.
Owner asserted that following the acquisition, all access via Garden Highway would be lost, and access via North Bayou and Schoolhouse Road is speculative. Each access point requires future encroachment permits from either the County of Sacramento or SAFCA which, if denied, would leave him landlocked.
Property remained accessible via both North Bayou and School Roads. Conflicting evidence as to whether such access could be cut off in the future. Nothing in the RON that reasonably could be construed as preventing the owner from continuing to access his property via North Bayou and Schoolhouse Roads following the acquisition.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the challenged evidence, which at least arguably had the potential of affecting the market value of the remaining property The evidence was necessary to refute the owner s claim that the property could be left landlocked in the future.
Offers and demands used as a basis for award of litigation expenses may be made after first phase of eminent domain trial.
CCP 1250.410 requires that parties to an eminent domain action exchange formal settlement proposals prior to trial. If, after trial, the owner s demand is found to be reasonable, and the agency s offer unreasonable, then the owner is entitled to recover litigation expenses.
When directing the court to consider only the offers and demands made prior to the date of the trial to determine entitlement to litigation expenses, Does the statute mean the court must consider only offers and demands made prior to the first date set for trial?
If not, then in a bifurcated proceeding, does the statutory phrase prior to the date of the trial on issues relating to compensation refer to (a) the trial in which the right to damages is adjudicated, or (b) the trial in which the amount of compensation is adjudicated?
The statute does not restrict the court to considering only the offer and demand made prior to the first date set for trial. In a bifurcated proceeding, the trial on issues relating to compensation means the trial in which the amount of compensation is determined.
The purpose of Section 1250.410 is to encourage settlement of condemnation actions by providing incentives to a party who submits a reasonable settlement offer or demand before trial. This goal would not be thwarted by considering, for purposes of said section, offers and demands made at least 20 days before a continued or actual trial date.
There is no precedent that interprets the phrase issues relating to compensation in section 1250.410. Court considered cases dealing with the right to a jury trial on the issue of compensation. The phrase the trial on issues relating to compensation found in section 1250.410 has a particular meaning in eminent domain practice, and refers to the trial in which the trier of fact determines the amount of compensation, including the amount of damages to be awarded to the property owner.
City s final offer of compensation for taking property was not reasonable because it was contingent.
The purpose of CCP 1250.410 is to promote settlement of valuation disputes in eminent domain proceedings and guarantee full recompense to the landowner in case of unnecessary litigation.
Section 1250.410 provides no real guidelines for resolving the question of reasonableness. Amount of difference between the demand or offer and the compensation awarded; Percentage of difference between the demand of offer and the award; Good faith, care and accuracy with which the demand or offer was calculated
This case is unusual because the issue before the court is not about the amount of the City s offer or the care with which it was formulated. The issue is whether the offer satisfied 1250.410 despite the fact that PCF would end up with no settlement at all if the FTA, the MTA or the Board were to subsequently reject it.
The purpose of the section is intended to require each side to submit a final figure for which it is willing to settle the case. The City could have privately sought and obtained Board approval in a closed session without prematurely disclosing its final offer. Thus, City s conditional settlement was unreasonable.
Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act may be used to finance eminent domain actions. Act could be used for incidental acquisition of intangible property.
When construing a statute, our objective is to ascertain the intent of the lawmakers so as to effectuate the purpose of the statute. We look first to the words of the statute.
Provides an alternative method of financing certain public capital facilities and services. Any local agency may use Mello-Roos financing. The Act authorizes a community facilities district to finance the purchase, construction, expansion, improvement, or rehabilitation of any real or other tangible property,
The Court considered the issue of whether a purchase must be voluntary or whether the term includes compensation for facilities acquired through eminent domain. Court concluded that the latter construction of the statute was more plausible and better effectuates the drafters intent.
Can the Act be used to finance the purchase of intangible property or property rights? Yes, in this case, the Act will be used to finance the acquisition of the facilities, real and tangible personal property. The Act can be used to finance the acquisition of the intangible property and property rights connected with the acquisition of those facilities.