CA Appeals Court Finds Eminent Domain Proceeding Did Not Trigger a Division of Land

I don't know all the facts, but my opinion is that they should have received two compliance for a new road dividing the land.

Then again I'm not a judge.

Have a great weekend!

long time lurker

Thanks for speaking up ACD. We need more voices heard here (well, not literally, but, you know what I mean).

Case with map here:
http://clsaforum.californiasurveyors.org/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=6405&hilit=domain

Due to onerous subdivision processes in California, having more "legal parcels" is much better that having less. So, many parties attempt to claim that roads, rivers, canals, pipelines, etc. effectively split their property into 2 or more legal parcels. Most parties fail because the planners turn 'em down, or the courts don't want to undermine the state and local subdivision regs. Sometimes they stretch logic to get to their opinion. Welcome to California.

I should mention that you can own (say) 4 adjoining assessor's parcels, or four adjoining parcels described separately in one deed, and still have 1 legal parcel in the eyes of the planning department.

Seems pretty convoluted to me. Under NC rules, I believe it would remain one parcel.

I met one of the parties at my previous job.

This is near John Marsh Home State Historic Park.

It would appear the Court followed the law well. The fact that the law is ridiculous is beyond their jurisdiction...

"We note that the Nunns knowingly purchased the property in its present configuration, the $964,000 paid to the former owner compensated the owner for any loss of value caused by the property‰Ûªs separation, and the Nunns presumably paid a reduced price for the property because of the effects of the condemnation. (See People v. Thompson (1954) 43 Cal.2d 13, 18 [landowner whose property is divided by highway entitled to receive value of land condemned plus reduction in value of remainder due to severance of portion condemned].) We find nothing unfair in requiring the Nunns to comply with the same procedures for subdivision as other landowners."

And

"The Nunns also argue that the condemnation exemption should apply to property reshaped by a condemnation proceeding because the government‰Ûªs cost in those proceedings will be higher when those proceedings result in ‰ÛÏillegal‰Û parcels. We accept neither the premise nor conclusion of this argument. First, although property reshaped by condemnation proceedings may have a new boundary, the reshaped property is not illegal. Owners can sell their entire property with its new boundaries, or they can convey any part of it so long as they comply with the Act. (å¤ 66424.) Second, the government‰Ûªs condemnation costs are unaffected because the government is already required to compensate landowners when it acquires property and leaves a remainder with a diminished value. (See People v. Thompson, supra, 43 Cal.2d at p. 18.)"

What a mess.

This is a perfect example of why I despise planning and zoning.

The cited case, People v. Thompson (1954) 43 Cal.2d 13, seems to say an easement does not sever the property but a fee strip does. The dissenting opinion in that case (which is about whether the State owes severance damages on a pre-existing highway to be upgraded to a freeway) argues the existing highway was already a fee strip therefore the State does not owe severance damages on the new freeway right of way condemnation.

The current opinion under discussion only uses the Thompson case to say the condemnor is required to pay severance damages therefore Nunn must've already been compensated for his single parcel being cut up by fee strips.

The outcome based tortured reasoning used in many of these cases is awe inspiring.

I've been following this case ever since Durkee filed the appeal of the trial case. At that time I anticipated the court would rule this way and am happy they did so. I find the ruling well reasoned and consistent with prior rulings. At this juncture I'm sure Durkee is pushing to appeal it to the CA Supreme Court. However I'm doubting that will be successful either in that the owners may decide its not worth tossing away more money or that the CA Supreme Court will refuse to hear the case. I highly doubt they will hear the case and am even less inclined to believe it will be overturned.

Most places I work have different statutory underpinnings. When property is taken you get the square foot value. Nevermind the sidewalk is now 5 feet outside the patio door. This is one of the few cases I like the California way better. If you take from someone you pay for the loss. It appears to me these folks want to double dip..

Dave, This must have been for the Brentwood by-pass. I did the preliminary survey on that project. Also helped recover the last two granite monuments. My understanding and my reasoning for my previous quote is a brand new road splitting property creates new lots. A road existing would not. Maybe the reasoning of the Court was that the road was existing when they bought the land. I'll have to read the case.

I surveyed four miles of State Park boundary which was the west boundary of the big Shea subdivision, a little north of there.

The Court says the FOC created the fee strips but for purposes of the SMA did not divide Nunn's parcel. Nunn argued he is entitled to at least a conditional certificate of compliance but the Court said that only applies to illegally subdivided parcels but here there is no subdivision.

I understand their reasoning but it seems to defy common sense.