Jury Sides With Property Owner in Solano County Eminent Domain Trial


According to an article in the Daily Republic, Jury: County owes $1.24M in eminent domain dispute, Solano County and a local land owner recently completed an eminent domain trial, and the jury sided with the owner.  The case, Solano County v. Valine, involved the County's partial acquisition of about 10 acres through the middle of the owner's 82-acre farmland in order to develop the Suisun Valley Parkway.  

Our esteemed colleague, professor Gideon Kanner, reports that the government agency initially offered $575,000 for the partial acquisition.  After no agreement could be reached, the agency commenced a condemnation action. As is typical, shortly before trial the parties exchanged appraisal reports.  This time, the agency offered two appraisals, one at $450,000, and one at $350,000.  The owner's appraised value was over $1.5 million.  

While some may wonder why the agency's appraisal at the time of the expert exchange was significantly less than its initial appraisal and offer, this is actually becoming more and more common, especially over the last few years in a declining real estate market.  The reason is usually due to the parties' using a date of value for the eminent domain action that is months (and sometimes over a year) after the completion of the initial appraisal, so as the market continued to dive, so did the impacted property's value.  Also, agencies rarely use the same appraiser for trial that they use for the initial appraisal/offer, so with a new appraiser typically comes a difference in opinion.  

After the expert exchange, the agency and the owner exchanged a final offer and a final demand.  (See Code of Civil Procedure section 1250.410.)  The County's final offer was $750,000, and the owner's final demand was $877,000. The parties still could not bridge the gap, and trial commenced.  The jury returned a verdict of $1.25 million -- over twice the agency's deposit (and over three times the value put forth by the agency at trial).  Given that the property owner recovered a significant amount above its final offer, it is likely the owner will be entitled to recover its attorneys' fees and expert fees.  (See our article on the good faith test for determining the award of litigation expenses.)

Written by:

Published In:

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Nossaman LLP | Attorney Advertising

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »

All the intelligence you need, in one easy email:

Great! Your first step to building an email digest of JD Supra authors and topics. Log in with LinkedIn so we can start sending your digest...

Sign up for your custom alerts now, using LinkedIn ›

* With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name.