Young

City of Porterville v. Young

Good Law
195 Cal. App. 3d 1260·1987 Cal. App. LEXIS 2279·241 Cal. Rptr. 349
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 2, 1987F006689California3,659 words

Opinion

Opinion

Ivey, J.

Plaintiff, City of Porterville (city), and defendant, Max L. Young (owner), each appeal from a judgment in condemnation, after a court trial, finding the value of owner’s property taken (the take) to be $18,336, and denying owner litigation expenses. City contends: (1) the take should have been valued as agricultural property; (2) city could legally require dedication of the take if the parcel of which it was a part (the parcel) were to be developed to a commercial use; and (3) the testimony of owner’s appraiser was totally without merit. Owner contends city’s final offer was unreasonable and he is therefore entitled to an award of litigation expenses.

As will appear, we conclude city’s first and second contentions are correct and reverse the judgment.

The Facts and Procedural Background

In the late 1950’s, owner acquired the parcel, five acres of agricultural property located on the east side of Prospect Street approximately three hundred twenty feet south of the intersection of that street and Henderson Avenue in the City of Porterville. Although the parcel was planted with a pomegranate orchard, it acquired C-2 zoning in 1965. Between 1983 and 1985, owner did not…

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.