HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - May 21, 1986 (81)LIABILITY CLAIM OF
LL0YD AND MnDRED
J. GUMS City Attorney Stein reported that when K Mart developed its
property on Cherokee Lane in Lodi in 1981, the engineer and
CC -4 (c) developer were required to obtain an easement for a
CC -27(a) watermain to serve that property. They went to Central
Traction Company and received a letter agreement allowing
the watermain over said property. Approximately six or
seven months ago, Lloyd Gums advised the City that the
property in question had been purchased by him and in fact
the easement should have been obtained frcxn him rather than
from Central Traction Campany. Mr. Gums is in the process
of developing his property with a building. The City would
either have had to remove the line or condemn the line at
its present location. It was determined by the City that
the cost of.removi.ng the line would be approximately $7,000
and therefore entered into negotiations with Mr. Gums with
the possibility of having the easerent at the present
location. The City Engineering Department . and City
Attorney, after such negotiations, determined it would be
in the best interest of the City to purchase the easement
for $7,000. If the City were required to condemn the
easement, the City would have had the expense of having an
appraisal done as well as the cost of litigation of same.
Following a lengthy discussion with questions being
directed to Staff and to the City Attorney, Council, on
k motion of Council Member Snider, Reid second, approved
settlement in this matter as recommended by staff in the
°: amount of $7,000.
COUNCIL MOTING
22, 1986
tf
t.
�N
( "UNCIL COI1 MUNICATICO
TO: THE CITY COUNCIL DATE NO.
1 FROM: THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE MAY 14, 1986
p
SUBJECT: LIABILITY CLAIM OF LLOYD P. A&' K LDRED J. GUMS.
s
.� RONALD M. STEIN
✓�
When,K Mart,,developed its property on Cherokee Lane in Lodi, in 1981,
the engineer and developer were required to obtain an easement for ..a
watermain to serve that property. They went to Central Traction
'
C npany and received a letter agreement allowing the wat in °'over
said property. Approximately six. or seven months ago, Lloyd Gums
{
advised the City that the Property in question had been purchased by ;
3
him and in fact the easement should have been obtained from him rather
y
than from Central Traction Campany. Mr. Gums' is in the process of '
sr.
developing his property with a building. The City would either have
$
- had"to remove the line or condemn the line at its present location. It
was dem by the City that the cost of remving the line would be
RW
approximately $7,000 and therefore entered into negotiations with Mr. .
Gums with the possibility of having the easement at the present
--
. n.
location. The City. Engineering Department and City Attorney, after
such negotiations, deternuned to purchase the easement for 'the $7,000
k
costa If the City were required to cow the easement,- the City
would have had the expense of having an appraisal done as well as the
cost of litigation of same.
-
It is therefore recommended that the City Council approve the
settlement` of $7 000.. In return for same Mr. Gums wi.L ive the
City the easement for said property.
s
.� RONALD M. STEIN
✓�
RM zvc
{
y
RW
--
. n.
5 3 «y
k
�TO: THE CITY OF LODI, CALIFORNIA, a Public Entity.
Y
14
15
16
17'
IS
19 1
20
21
22
23
x_
24
25
26
27
26
29
30
32
.33.
34
35�-.
„
36
�TO: THE CITY OF LODI, CALIFORNIA, a Public Entity.
Y
1
Claimants as hereinabove described,,: under a' theory of easementby.
k=
2
purchase, grant or prescription which claim is not fully known to.
3
Claimants and is hereby renounced and denied by Claimants on the
4
grounds that same cannot be identified with the requisite degree of .
5
particularity.
6
8
Y
9
10
Within the last one hundred days and on or about February
11
1, 1986, Claimants became aware that the above -referenced public
12
entity caused a pipeline to be placed under and within :the Claimants'
s
('
13
Lodi Avenue real property, and further allege that said public entity'
14
did so without the knowledge, _ permission or consent of Claimants or
15
their predecessors in interest: Such pipeline constitutes a nuisance
lb
and a trespass as to Claimants' Lodi Avenue real property.
17
18
19
IV
i
40
21
The conduct of the above named public entity as hereinabove
22
described has caused Claimants to lose the quiet use and enjoyment of
r
23
their, unique real property and therefore Claimants are entitled to:
;
24
equitable relief inthe farm of an injunction directing that the
a
25
nuisance be abated and that the trespass cease. -
26
27
_
28
V
y
29
30�
The conduct of the above-named public entity as hereinabove.
31
described has caused damages to Claimants in the nature of the
32
diminuition of value of their Lodi Avenue real property in an amount-
mount
33
33
in excess of Fifty`Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00), the exact amount to
34
be determined according to proof. `.
35
36
2
s
F
l
VI
2
3
Claimants have retained MICHAEL L. GUMS, to act as their
#,
4
attorney in the prosecution of this claim and all notices concerning _
s.
5
this claim should be sent to Claimants' attorney addressed as -
6
follows: MICHAEL L. GUMS, A Professional Corporation, 629 "J"
7
Street, Second Floor, Sacramento, California 95814. (916) 446-6416.
9
WHEREFORE, Claimants pray for adetermination that:
_=
10
1. Claimants are entitled to recover damages from the
{
above named public entity for trespassing and diminuition off the
12
value of the Lodi Avenue real property in an amount _as of yet
13
undetermined but believed to be in excess of Fifty Thousand Dollars
14
($50,000.00) and to be determined according to proof.
15
16
2 That the above named public entity be determined-
_
17
to be violating Claimants property rights in the manner hereinabove
18
set forth.
19
20
3 That the above named public entity cease and
z
21
desist from a further violation of the Claimants property rights.
22
4. That this claim be accepted and appropriate
23
24
hearings be scheduled.
DATED:
26
27
28
MICHAEL L. GUMS
29
`Attorney for Claimants
30
=
31
_
32
33
34
;
35
36
.i
PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL
I''am a citizen of the United States and a` resident of
Sacramento County, California. I am over the age of 18 years and not
a.party to the within above entitled action. My business address is,�
629 J Street, _Second Floor, Sacramento,, California. On this date I.'
served the foregoing by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a
sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, in the United
States post office mail box at Sacramento, California, addressed as
follows: LODI CITY COUNCIL, Post Office box 320, Lodi, California
95240, Certified.Mail,`Return Receipt Requested.
I`declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is
true and correct and that this declaration was executed on April 29,
1986, at Sacramento, California.
TERRI McKEY
r
it
i
4
�h