Wedding

This appeal is from an adverse judgment in an inverse condemnation action.

We adopt the “Factual Statement” as set forth in appellant’s brief:

The date of taking was the prime issue at trial and the finding was, in effect, that the damage to Lot 11 was complete on April 20, 1970. Appellant did not file his claim until either May 12 or May 18, 1971. By its conclusion of law, the court said: “[Appellant] failed to file a claim with the Board of Control within one year of accrual as required by Government Code Sections 911.2 and 901, 905.2, and 945.4.”

Appellant argues that a 1976 amendment to Government Code section 905.2 and the addition of section 905.1 negates the requirement that a claim be filed for the damaging or taking of property and that the amendment is applicable to a case such as this, which is tried on or after *722 January 1, 1977. 1 Appellant also argues that in the event a claim is required, one was timely filed by him.

In support of these arguments, appellant cites City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (Northrop) (1977) 73 Cal.App.3d 509 [ 142 Cal.Rptr. 292 ], The state argues not only that Northrop is bad law but that it is distinguishable. In that…