Turner

I dissent.

The majority concludes that where a condemner offers to settle an eminent domain action for a sum equal to its appraiser’s good faith opinion of value the standard of reasonableness has been satisfied by the condemner and the property owners may not recover their litigation expenses under Code of Civil Procedure section 1250.410. 1 I disagree. I believe this test not only diminishes the professional role of the lawyer, but fails to satisfy the requirements of the statute.

*39 The same judge who presided at the trial ruled on the motion for costs. No additional evidence was presented. Although in the first instance the measure of reasonableness is a factual matter for the trial court (City of Los Angeles v. Cannon (1976) 57 Cal.App.3d 559, 562 [ 127 Cal.Rptr. 709 ]), where uncontradicted evidence permits only one conclusion, the issue is one of law and not of fact. (See County of Los Angeles v. Kranz (1972) 65 Cal.App.3d 656, 659 [ 135 Cal.Rptr. 473 ]; City of Gardena v. Camp (1977) 70 Cal.App.3d 252, 255 [ 138 Cal.Rptr. 656 ].) The decision by this court should not rest on the substantial evidence rule.

The good faith, care and accuracy in how the amount of the offer…

COLOGNE, Acting P.J.

Herbert B. Turner and Herbert B. Turner Corporation, property owners, appeal from a trial court order denying their motion for litigation expenses after a favorable jury verdict in the action in eminent domain by the state. The motion was made pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1250.410. [1]

After a jury returned a verdict in the sum of $587,000 in their favor, the property owners requested litigation expenses including attorneys' and engineers' fees. Their demand was made on the statutory grounds (1) the property owners' final demand of $600,000 was reasonable; [2] and (2) the plaintiff's final offer of $462,300 was unreasonable, both viewed in light of the evidence admitted and the compensation awarded. The trial court denied the motion finding both the offer and the demand were reasonable. We are presented with the sole question whether the trial court abused its discretion in finding the state's offer was reasonable.

(1) Where the reasonableness of an offer by a condemning agency has been factually determined by the trial judge, the determination must be upheld if supported by substantial evidence. The measure of reasonableness is, in…

Herbert B. Turner and Herbert B. Turner Corporation, property owners, appeal from a trial court order denying their motion for litigation expenses after a favorable jury verdict in the *36 action in eminent domain by the state. The motion was made pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1250.410.

After a juiy returned a verdict in the sum of $587,000 in their favor, the property owners requested litigation expenses including attorneys’ and engineers’ fees. Their demand was made on the statutory grounds (1) the property owners’ final demand of $600,000 was reasonable; 2 and (2) the plaintiff’s final offer of $462,300 was unreasonable, both viewed in light of the evidence admitted and the compensation awarded. The trial court denied the motion finding both the offer and the demand were reasonable. We are presented with the sole question whether the trial court abused its discretion in finding the state’s offer was reasonable.

Where the reasonableness of an offer by a condemning agency has been factually determined by the trial judge, the determination must be upheld if supported by substantial evidence. The measure of reasonableness is, in the first instance, a…