Hinz

City of Saratoga v. Hinz

Caution
115 Cal. App. 4th 1202·2004 Cal. App. LEXIS 200·2004 Daily Journal DAR 2265·9 Cal. Rptr. 3d 791·2004 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1480
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 20, 2004H023549California10,686 words

Opinion

Opinion

Rushing, J.

In this eminent domain action, defendant property owner Lester F. Hinz, Jr., appeals a judgment that rejected his challenges to the resolution of necessity adopted by the City of Saratoga (the City) when it decided to condemn an easement over a portion of Hinz’s property to improve a private road so that the road might be accepted into the City’s system of public streets. The road improvement project was undertaken and financed by the Vessing Road Assessment District (VRAD), a special assessment district composed of property owners who own parcels that adjoin Hinz’s property.

Hinz contends the trial court erred when it found that his affirmative defense challenging the validity of the assessment district was barred by the limitations period in Streets and Highways Code section 10400. And if not time-barred, then he challenges the validity of the district, arguing that 100 percent owner-financed districts are not valid under Proposition 218 and that the assessment district is not valid because it confers no general benefit on the surrounding community. Hinz also challenges the resolution of necessity on the grounds that the road improvement project is not a public use and…

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.