Highsmith

City of San Leandro v. Highsmith

Good Law
123 Cal. App. 3d 146·176 Cal. Rptr. 412·1981 Cal. App. LEXIS 2102
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 28, 1981Civ. 49802California4,145 words

Opinion

Opinion

Barry-Deal, J.

The property owners appeal from an order denying their motion for litigation expenses pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1250.410 following an interlocutory judgment of condemnation of their property on September 26, 1979.

Appellants contend that respondent was apprised of their demand of $550,000 as just compensation by their deposition and that the actual trial date, rather than the original trial date which had been continued because of court congestion, was the controlling date for the 30-day notice of demand. They further maintain that the condemner’s offer of compensation was unreasonable, that their demand was reasonable, and therefore that the trial court abused its discretion in denying their motion.

Background

Declarations upon which the motion was submitted reveal these facts. Rose Highsmith owned a two-thirds interest in a 30,000 square foot parcel of property on East Fourteenth Street in San Leandro, Alameda County. Her sister-in-law, Palmira T. Armanino, owned the other one-third interest as trustee of the Dominic C. Armanino Trust. Dominic, the brother of Rose, was trustor and a beneficiary of the trust created in 1973; he had also been the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.