Petras

City of Santa Barbara v. Petras

Good Law
1971 Cal. App. LEXIS 1092·21 Cal. App. 3d 506·98 Cal. Rptr. 635
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 24, 1971Civ. 37153California2,022 words

Opinion

Opinion

Cobey, J.

The property owners, Petras et al., appeal from a judgment in condemnation in the amount of $175,000. The sole question is whether the trial, court was correct in excluding from evidence the fact that the lease on the property obligated the lessee, the Bank of America, to remodel extensively the building on the property.

The trial court based its ruling upon the' last sentence of Code of Civil Procedure, section 1249 which, since 1872, has read: “No improvements put upon the property subsequent to the date of the service of summons shall be included in the assessment of compensation or damages.” In so ruling the court committed prejudicial error and we reverse.

Facts

Early in September 1966 John Petras told his lawyer, John T. Rickard, that the Bank of America was interested in leasing Petras’ downtown business locations at 914 and 916 State Street, Santa Barbara as a temporary location for its downtown headquarters pending the construction of its new headquarters. At the time this property was under lease to two commercial concerns for a total monthly rental of $1,300. Petras explained that the negotiations between himself and the bank’s representatives had been going…

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.