Burkhardt

Padre Dam Municipal Water District v. Burkhardt

Good Law
1995 Cal. App. LEXIS 947·38 Cal. App. 4th 988·45 Cal. Rptr. 2d 506·95 Daily Journal DAR 13070·95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7672
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 28, 1995D021143California2,482 words

Opinion

Opinion

Benke, J.

Summary

The principal issue on appeal in this eminent domain proceeding is whether the defendant landowner properly disclosed the valuation evidence he offered at trial. We find that he did not.

Plaintiff and appellant Padre Dam Municipal Water District (Padre) acquired 4.2 acres of land owned by defendants and appellants Joseph M. Burkhardt et al. (Burkhardt). Prior to trial Burkhardt disclosed the identity of and valuation opinion of an appraiser as required by Code of Civil Procedure sections 1258.220, 1258.250 and 1258.260. However, shortly before trial Burkhardt discovered flaws in his appraiser’s opinion and on the day trial was set to commence Burkhardt moved for a continuance and an order permitting him to substitute an appraiser in place of the previously designated appraiser. The trial court denied the motion.

The case trailed for a month and eventually was transferred to a different department for trial. Upon transfer to the new trial department, Burkhardt filed a trial brief which stated that he planned to call one of the co-owners of the property, Robert Brandt, to testify as to the value of the property. Burkhardt did not file or serve a statement of…

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.