Council of San Benito Co. Governments v. Hollister Inn 9/19/12 CA6

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » California » 6th Appellate District » 2012 » Council of San Benito Co. Governments v. Hollister Inn 9/19/12 CA6

State: California

Court: California Eastern District Court

Docket No: H036629

Case Date: 09/19/2012

Plaintiff: Council of San Benito Co. Governments

Defendant: Hollister Inn 9/19/12 CA6

Preview:Filed 9/19/12

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

COUNCIL OF SAN BENITO COUNTY GOVERNMENTS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. HOLLISTER INN, INC., Defendant and Respondent.

H036629 (San Benito County Super. Ct. Nos. CU-06-00051, CU-06-00054)

This case involves two consolidated actions in eminent domain brought by the Council of San Benito County Governments (COG), a joint powers authority created under a joint powers agreement between the County of San Benito, the City of Hollister, and the City of San Juan Bautista, to acquire property for the Highway 25 Bypass Project. In the eminent domain proceedings, COG sought to condemn real property or interests in real property belonging to "Janet P. Roberts, Trustee of The Janet P. Roberts Family Trust, created under Agreement dated November 24, 1982, as amended and restated" (Roberts) and respondent Hollister Inn, Inc. (Hollister Inn). The project resulted in the elimination of a roadway easement over Roberts's private property connecting Hollister Inn's property to Highway 25. On appeal from the final judgment in condemnation, COG challenges (1) the trial court's order of conditional dismissal that dismissed the action unless COG cured what the court found to be a gross abuse of discretion in adopting resolutions of necessity and 1

(2) the trial court's associated order awarding reasonable litigation expenses in the amount of $233,750 to respondent Hollister Inn. Both orders were incorporated into the final judgment, which recognized that COG had taken corrective action before judgment to comply with the order of conditional dismissal. COG contends the trial court's orders were erroneous because, among other reasons, the court misconstrued Code of Civil Procedure section 1240.350.1 We agree. We conclude that the trial court erred in finding that COG had committed a gross abuse of discretion, issuing the order of conditional dismissal, and awarding reasonable litigation expenses to Hollister Inn. I Procedural Background COG gave written notice to respondent Hollister Inn that, at its meeting of February 16, 2006, it would be considering the adoption of a resolution of necessity to condemn real property, a portion of Assessor's Parcel No. (APN) 053-380-008, for the "Highway 25 Hollister Bypass Project." The staff report for the meeting indicated that the bypass project involved the acquisition of real property interests from 30 property owners, COG had negotiated voluntary agreements with 13 property owners at that point in time, and the staff was recommending that COG adopt the resolutions of necessity authorizing the filing of eminent domain actions. In the report, staff explained: "Access from Hollister Inn['s property] onto the existing Highway 25 will be closed, and a sign for the Inn and a dumpster will be relocated. The access must be closed due to the curved configuration of the connection of the Bypass to Highway 25." At the hearing Ann Arnold, who represented Hollister Inn, stated that there had not been a showing that the acquisition would result in the least private injury to her
1

All further statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure unless otherwise specified. 2

client. She pointed out that the project would eliminate the connection between Hollister Inn's property, on which it operated a Best Western hotel, and Highway 25. She indicated that right of way that COG was seeking to acquire was "the main entrance and exit to the hotel" and acquisition would "severely damage business and impact . . . profits." She expressed frustration that she had just recently learned that the plans showing an alternative easement were not current. A female, who is unnamed in the transcript of the proceedings but who the parties identify in their appellate briefs as the project manager for the bypass project, stated that the driveway was not in a safe location. The female speaker acknowledged that access would be eliminated and the possibility of relocating the driveway had been previously investigated and rejected because Hollister Inn was not the owner of the property that would have been condemned and the project could not condemn someone else's property (in this case Roberts's property) for the benefit of an adjacent property owner. Shortly thereafter, Carla, presumably Carla Vincent,2 who the briefs indicate was the same female speaker, mentioned the possibility of Hollister Inn negotiating an alternative easement somewhere farther north along the bypass, which would be in a safer location. Ann Arnold spoke again. She indicated that 80 to 90 percent of the hotel's business came in from Highway 25 and condemnation would cause "severe repercussions to the profits and bottom line of our client . . . ." She explained that, in addition to eliminating ingress and egress to the hotel on Highway 25, the project was adding a center median on San Felipe Road, which was going to prevent truckers and drivers traveling north on that road from making a direct left into the hotel and 18-wheelers were

2

Carla Vincent was introduced at the hearing as an employee of Parson's Transportation Group and the design engineer for the Highway 25 Hollister Bypass project. 3

not going to be able to make a u-turn on that road. She asserted that the severance damages had not been properly addressed. The chairwoman of COG's board indicated that presumably an easement could be negotiated but COG could not take Roberts's property to create a substitute access easement for Hollister Inn's property because that would be taking private property rights for the benefit of another private entity. On February 16, 2006, the Board of Directors of COG adopted, among others, Resolution of Necessity 6-18 (APN 053-380-009) to acquire a fee simple interest in certain property belonging to Roberts. In that resolution, COG's board found and determined the requisite facts, including that "[t]he proposed Project is planned and located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury." Resolution of Necessity 6-13 (APN 053-380-008) to acquire Hollister Inn's nonexclusive right of way for road purposes did not pass on February 16, 2006. A new notice informed Hollister Inn that COG's Board of Directors would reconsider the adoption of a resolution of necessity to acquire a portion of APN 053-380008 on March 7, 2006. The staff report for that meeting stated in part: "Access from Hollister Inn onto the existing Highway 25 will be closed, and a sign for the Inn and a dumpster on the property will be relocated. The access must be closed due to the curved configuration of the connection of the Bypass to Highway 25. Maintaining the access would result in an unsafe entry point onto the Highway. A design that included this access would not meet Caltrans design standards and would not be consistent with general engineering requirements. [

Download H036629.PDF