Eastern Municipal Water District v. Superior Court

Good Law
157 Cal. App. 4th 1245·2007 Cal. App. LEXIS 2027·69 Cal. Rptr. 3d 314
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 19, 2007E041660California4,072 words

Opinion

Opinion

McKINSTER, J.

INTRODUCTION

This is an eminent domain action in which petitioner Eastern Municipal Water District (district) seeks to acquire an easement across property owned by real parties in interest for the purpose of laying an underground pipeline. At the time of filing, the property was vacant land. The issue before us is whether the trial court properly determined that the “valuation date” for the property should be changed from the date on which a deposit of “probable compensation” was made by the district to the date of trial. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1263.110, 1263.120, 1263.130.) We conclude that the ruling was erroneous and that the proper valuation date is the date of deposit. Accordingly, we will grant the petition.

STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The complaint was filed on October 12, 2004, and on the same date, district deposited the sum of $50,800 as “probable compensation” for the taking. This sum represented the current appraisal of the easement and expected severance damages by a qualified appraiser hired by the district. District also sought immediate possession of the property, proposing to give the statutory 30-day notice of the order for possession…

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.