S.D. Metro. Transit v. RV Communities 3/29/05 CA4/1

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » California » Court of Appeal » 2005 » S.D. Metro. Transit v. RV Communities 3/29/05 CA4/1

State: California

Court: 1st District Court of Appeal 1st District Court of Appeal

Docket No: D042545

Case Date: 07/20/2005

Preview:Filed 3/29/05

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SAN DIEGO METROPOLITAN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT BOARD, Plaintiff and Appellant,

D042545

(Super. Ct. No. GIC774602-1) v. RV COMMUNITIES, Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Thomas O. Lavoy, Judge. Affirmed. Best, Best & Krieger, Bruce W. Beach and Karen M. Freeman for Plaintiff and Appellant. Myers, Widders, Gibson, Jones & Schneider and Katherine E. Stone for League of California Cities and California State Association of Counties, as Amici Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant. Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps, Charles A. Bird; Gordon & Holmes, Frederic L. Gordon and Rhonda J. Holmes for Defendant and Respondent.

In this eminent domain case involving partial condemnation of the defendant's land, we decide, among other issues, that the defendant was entitled to maintain an inverse condemnation cross-action for claimed total loss of use of a portion of the remaining land, and was not limited to severance damages in the direct action for that injury. We also decide the trial court properly changed the date of valuation of the condemned property from the date the governmental plaintiff deposited probable compensation to the date of trial. Plaintiff San Diego Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB) appeals from a judgment in condemnation awarding defendant RV Communities (RV) compensation for property taken by eminent domain, additional property taken by inverse condemnation, a temporary construction easement, a drainage easement, and severance damage to its remaining property. MTDB contends the court committed reversible error by (1) allowing RV's inverse condemnation cross-action to proceed after MTDB filed its direct condemnation action and ordering MTDB to take additional property not specified in the resolution of necessity; (2) changing the date of valuation from the date MTDB deposited probable compensation to the date of trial; (3) admitting opinion evidence of severance damages that was not properly exchanged under Code of Civil Procedure1 section 1258.810 et seq.; (4) admitting evidence of a specific plan of development and damages tied to the specific plan; (5) admitting evidence of MTDB's value engineering

1 All further statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure unless otherwise noted.

2

decisions during the planning phase of the project; (6) not excluding the testimony of RV's appraiser on the ground he failed to use or consider the "zones of value" methodology in reaching his value opinion; and (7) refusing to instruct the jury on the zones of value methodology.2 We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On September 13, 2001, MTDB adopted a resolution of necessity to acquire a portion of property owned by RV (the property) for construction of a trolley line known as the Mission Valley East Light Rail Transit Project (the project). RV was using the property as a recreational vehicle resort. MTDB determined it was necessary to acquire fee simple absolute title to 39,514 square feet of the property, a temporary construction and grading easement of 50,254 square feet, and a drainage easement of 5,478 square feet. On September 18, 2001, MTDB filed its complaint in eminent domain. On September 27, MTDB deposited $79,357 as the probable amount of just compensation for the taking of RV's property. The amount of the deposit was based on a declaration by MTDB's real estate appraiser, James Brabant, stating his opinion of the property's value. On the same day, MTDB obtained an order for possession authorizing it to take possession of the condemned property in 90 days.

2 The League of California Cities and California State Association of Counties filed an amicus curiae brief in support of MTDB, arguing that the trial court should not have allowed RV's inverse condemnation cross-action to proceed and that the proper date of valuation was the date MTDB deposited probable compensation rather than the date of trial. 3

RV filed an answer to the eminent domain complaint in November 2001 and in February 2002, withdrew the $79,357 deposited by MTDB. In April the court set trial for August 23, 2002. In June MTDB filed an ex parte application to continue the trial date to April 4, 2003 or later. MTDB asserted RV would be unable to prove its claim for construction damages if trial commenced in August because the impact of the project construction on RV's recreational vehicle park and its tenants would not be known until a majority of the construction was complete in April 2003. The court continued the trial date to January 10, 2003 and granted RV leave to file an amended answer and crosscomplaint. RV filed a first amended answer and a cross-complaint asserting causes of action for temporary severance damages, de facto temporary taking by inverse condemnation, de facto permanent taking by inverse condemnation, and pre and post condemnation delay. In both the amended answer and cross-complaint, RV alleged that MTDB's actions caused a permanent taking of the area of the temporary construction easement. MTDB filed a demurrer to the cross-complaint, asserting that each of RV's causes of action "must be asserted by way of a properly pleaded answer [to the eminent domain complaint], not through a separate cross-complaint." The court overruled the demurrer and MTDB filed an answer to the cross-complaint. MTDB moved to bifurcate the cross-complaint issues of liability for precondemnation damages and de facto taking, which were to be tried by the court, from the jury issue of just compensation. Before the hearing date on the motion, MTDB filed an ex parte application to set the trial of precondemnation damages and defenses for 4

January 10, 2003 and the jury trial on valuation at least two months later. At the ex parte hearing the court ordered the requested bifurcation and advanced the court trial date to December 13, 2002. The parties exchanged lists of expert witnesses and statements of valuation data. On the December 13 trial date, RV dropped all of its causes of action against MTDB except the cause of action for inverse condemnation. The court deemed the first phase of the trial complete, but deferred the issue of whether the "temporary construction easement [plus] a remnant constitutes a taking" to the "phase II valuation" trial. The court scheduled the second phase of the trial to begin on February 28, 2003. Shortly before the February 28 trial date, RV filed a motion to increase MTDB's deposit of probable compensation to $300,300 and to change the date of value from the date of deposit (September 27, 2002) to the date of trial (February 28, 2003). On February 18, before the motion was heard, MTDB voluntarily deposited an additional $220,643 as probable compensation. On February 21, the court granted RV's motion as to both requests. After a bench trial on RV's inverse condemnation claim, the court ruled that MTDB had inversely condemned a 20,100 square foot area of the property "representing the toe of the eastern slope" (referred to by RV as the "Eastern Slope Toe"). The inversely condemned area consisted of 12,400 square feet of land within MTDB's temporary construction easement and 7,700 square feet of land that was not within any of MTDB's take areas.

5

After the court issued its inverse condemnation ruling, the valuation issues were tried to a jury. The jury returned a special verdict finding the following fair market values for the interests taken by MTDB: $1,132,866 for the directly condemned land taken in fee simple absolute; $576,267 for the land taken in fee simple absolute by inverse condemnation; $139,944 for the temporary construction easement; and $78,527 for the drainage easement. The jury also found severance damages of $470,000 and no benefits to RV's remaining property. The court entered a judgment in condemnation consistent with the jury's verdict. MTDB filed its notice of appeal after unsuccessfully moving for a new trial. DISCUSSION I ALLOWANCE OF RV'S INVERSE CONDEMNATION CROSS-ACTION AFTER MTDB FILED A DIRECT EMINENT DOMAIN ACTION MTDB contends the trial court should not have allowed RV's inverse condemnation cross-action to proceed because it was based on the same property that was the subject of MTDB's direct condemnation action. As authority for that contention, MTDB cites Richmond Redevelopment Agency v. Western Title Guaranty Company (1975) 48 Cal.App.3d 343, 351 (Richmond), in which the Court of Appeal, applying former eminent domain statutes, held that a property owner's inverse condemnation cross-complaint was properly struck because it sought the same type of damages the property owner was required to seek by answer to the direct condemnation complaint and would have obtained as part of the eminent domain award.

6

Richmond was decided under now obsolete eminent domain statutes that required the defendant property owner to allege the amount of damages claimed by reason of the taking in the answer to the eminent domain complaint.3 Richmond concluded the inverse condemnation cross-complaint was properly struck because " '[t]he clear implication from the provisions which enable [the defendant to present any claims for damages caused by the taking] by answer is that no cross-complaint is to be filed for the same purpose.' [Citation.]" (Richmond, supra, 48 Cal.App.3d at p. 351, quoting People v. Buelton Development Co., supra, 58 Cal.App.2d at pp. 183-184, italics added by Richmond.) Under the current statutory scheme, the only requirement that damages be specifically claimed by answer to an eminent domain complaint is that when the defendant seeks compensation for loss of goodwill, the answer must specifically state that the defendant claims compensation under section 1263.510 (the statute governing compensation for loss of goodwill), but the amount of such damage does not have to be alleged. (

Download S.D. Metro. Transit v. RV Communities 3/29/05 CA4/1.pdf