California Eminent Domain Report : a blog following condemnation, inverse condemnation, and regulatory takings written by attorneys with Nossaman LLP.

The California Court of Appeal has issued a new published decision involving an unusual set of circumstances surrounding an eminent domain and inverse condemnation case.  In Cobb v. City of Stockton, the City filed an eminent domain action to acquire the owner's property; shortly thereafter, the City obtained prejudgment possession and constructed a public roadway on the property.  So far, seems typical.

Here's where things get unusual.  After nine years, the matter had not made its way to trial, and the court dismised the action for "lack of prosecution."  (I'm not entirely sure how the agency, the property owner, or the court could allow this to happen.)  The City promised to re-file the action, but apparently never did so.  The property owner turned around and filed an inverse condemnation action against the City. 

The owner's inverse action was initially dismissed on the grounds that it was time-barred (the City took the property over nine years ago, well outside the statute of limitations for an inverse condemnation claim).  On Appeal, the Court reversed, logically holding that the inverse claim did not accrue until the City's occupation of the property became wrongful, which only occurred after the eminent domain action was dismissed.

The Court explained why the trial court's decision to dismiss the inverse condemnation claim made no sense:

Taken to its logical conclusion, the trial court's ruling would mean that every time a condemning authority takes prejudgment possession of the subject property, the owner would have to file a protective inverse condemnation claim in the event the eminent domain action is later dismissed. Such action would then remain dormant while the eminent domain action ran its course.

Not surprisingly, this case involved an issue of first impression.  It is unlikely to come up very often, but it serves as a reminder that public agencies can be on the hook for inverse claims where eminent domain actions are not prosecuted in a timely fashion.  With the hook of the inverse claim, this likely means that the property owner can now recover attorneys' fees as well.

For a bit more on the decision, take a look at Robert Thomas' blog post, "Cal Ct App: Inverse Condemnation Statute Of Limitations For Physical Taking Begins When Invasion Becomes Wrongful."

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Perhaps the most talked-about California eminent domain case in 2009 has been the City of Stockton v. Marina Towers decision, in which the Court struck down the City's right to take property where the resolution of necessity contained no real public purpose (not surprising, since the City did not know at the time it filed the action what it would do with the property).   The case's tag-line usually played out like this:  the "project" was the condemnation itself, which does not qualify as a public purpose.   

This holding was itself somewhat interesting, as California law contains relatively few examples of a court's rejecting the government's right to take property.  What gave it real pizazz, however, was the fact that while the case was pending, the City of Stockton figured out what it wanted to do with the property -- and it proceeded to build the new, Stockton Ballpark on it. 

With no right to take, who now owned the shiny new stadium?  The court's solution was to allow the government a chance to file a new action to condemn the property now that a legitimate public use had attached.  And this week, the City Council voted to do just that, authorizing a new condemnation action to acquire the property. 

Record Staff Writer David Siders writes in a December 2 article "Stockton revisits ballpark land seizure:  Disputed property line divides left field from right" that the City agreed to commence a new action following a short public hearing Tuesday night.  The City's action was in response to a court-imposed December deadline to re-file; despite its action, the City claims to want to reach a settlement:

"This has gone on way too long, and we need to resolve this," Mayor Ann Johnston said.

That said, the parties may have vastly different views about the property's value:

During the initial eminent domain trial, a jury put the value of the Marina Towers property at just less than $2 million. Marina Towers previously said the value is closer to $6 million.

We'll let you know what ultimately happens. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)
• Share Link