Mireiter

San Diego County Water Authority v. Mireiter

Good Law
18 Cal. App. 4th 1808·1993 Cal. App. LEXIS 980·23 Cal. Rptr. 2d 455·93 Daily Journal DAR 12476·93 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7371
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 29, 1993D016677California4,377 words

Opinion

Opinion

Wiener, J.

In eminent domain cases, the “date of valuation” generally precedes the date of trial at which the value of the property is determined. The question here is whether a jury, in determining the amount of compensation due the property owner, is required to consider facts discovered during this lag which tend to reduce the property’s fair market value. We conclude that the language of Code of Civil Procedure section 1263.320, which defines “fair market value” as “the highest price on the date of valuation that would be agreed to by a seller . . . and a buyer . . . each dealing with the other with fiill knowledge of all the uses and purposes for which the property is reasonably adaptable and available,” necessarily implies such facts must be taken into account. Accordingly, because the jury here was not properly instructed with respect to such facts, we reverse the judgment.

Factual and Procedural Background

Defendants John and Maria Mireiter, Joseph and Lee Mireiter, and Josef and Adelheid Bauer owned a rectangular piece of undeveloped property consisting of 7.38 acres located in the City of San Marcos. Studies in 1979 and 1986 had identified four “vernal pools” located on…

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.