;
Advanced Search

  Judicial Profile



Case Number: 20STCV05782    Hearing Date: July 24, 2020    Dept: 55

Tentative Ruling

 

The motion is granted.

After considering Plaintiff’s notice of errata filed 7/1/20, the Court now finds that the resolution referenced in the Complaint references the same address as the one stated in the motion.  Therefore, a supportive resolution is shown.

“Once a resolution of necessity is adopted, the resolution conclusively establishes the three criteria set forth under section 1240.030…. However, a person having an interest in property described in a resolution of necessity may still obtain judicial review of the validity of the resolution…. Review is … available after the commencement of the eminent domain proceeding by objection to the right to take.”  Santa Cruz County Redevelopment Agency v. Izant (1995) 37 Cal. App. 4th 141, 149.  “[T]he trial court's review of the validity of the resolution of necessity under section 1245.255 is limited to a review of the agency's proceedings and therefore no new evidence may be admitted.”  Id. at 150.

“California's ‘quick-take’ law provides only for an ‘order of possession’ upon deposit of estimated value. (§ 1255.410.) The date of possession may be postponed on hardship grounds (§ 1255.420), and it may be stayed while the condemnee litigates a potentially meritorious claim that the public agency does not have the right to take the property by eminent domain (§ 1255.430).”  Redevelopment Agency v. Gilmore (1985) 38 Cal. 3d 790, 800.  Accord  Mt. San Jacinto Community College Dist. v. Sup. Ct. (2007) 40 Cal. 4th 648, 653.

 

Under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1255.420, the court may stay the effective date for immediate possession, if it finds that defendants or occupants will suffer substantial hardship, and finds whether the condemning authority needs possession on that date, or whether it would suffer substantial hardship from an extension of that date.  Israni v. Sup. Ct.  (2001) 88 Cal. App. 4th 621, 640-41.

 

“The condemnor is required to establish the amount it believes to be just compensation for the property to be acquired and to make an offer in the full amount to the property owner. The offer cannot be less than the public entity's approved appraisal of the fair market value of the property.”   11 Cal. Real Est. §30A:18 (3d ed.)  (citing  Gov. C. § 7267.2(a)(1)).

 

An opinion outlines the requirements of statutory procedures for taking possession, as follows:

 

[A] second procedure, a quick-take proceeding, allows a public agency to take possession of a condemned property and the property owner to obtain the probable compensation for that property well in advance of the termination of court proceedings. Under section 1255.010, a public entity may accomplish an early taking of property by making a deposit of the “probable amount of compensation” at any time prior to entry of judgment. The amount of the deposit must be based on an appraisal of an expert qualified to express an opinion as to the value of the property and must be supported by a written statement of, or summary of the basis for, the appraisal. (§ 1255.010, subd. (b).) n2 After a deposit of probable compensation has been made, the court may order that possession of the property be transferred to the condemner, after considering any opposition from the owner of the property and making certain findings regarding the public entity's legal right to take the property and the relative hardships that would befall the parties were title not transferred until after legal proceedings are completed. (§ 1255.410.)

 

Redevelopment Agency of San Diego v. Mesdaq (2007) 154 Cal. App. 4th 1111, 1120-21.

 



Simply fill the form below to sign up for updates

Thank you for signing up for updates