HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - November 20, 1996 (66)AGENDA TITLE: Request that City Join Amicus Brief in the case of Meftolitan
WaterDisMct of Southem Califomia v. Francis N. Domenigoni et al.
MEETING DATE: November 20, 1996
PREPARED BY: City Attorney
RECOMMENDATION: That the city join the amicus brief in the case of Metropolitan Water
District of Southem Califomia v. Francis N. Domeniaoni et al.
BACKGROUND: Amicus briefs are filed in various actions which involve matters of wide
ranging concern to provide information and additional argument to the court
in order to assist the court in understanding all of the issues and arrive at a
conclusion.
This case involves a rather narrow field of law called eminent domain. That field of law involves the exercise by a
jurisdiction of the power of condemnation to acquire property for public purposes. In this case, Metropolitan Water
District of Southern California (MWD) sought to acquire land in order to build a dam as part of MWD's Eastside
Reservoir project.
Following a trial on the issue the property owner in question was awarded $43,200,000 for 510 acres of ground. This
figure was in excess of five times the appraised value of the property as appraised by MWD. MWD has appealed the
trial court decision. The issues on appeal deal with the concept of severance damages as well as whether or not
pretrial condemnation activity of MWD resulted in unreasonable delays which caused a reduction in the value of the
property.
With regard to the severance issue, a novel approach was constructed by the court to find that property located a half
mile from the property which was to be taken suffered severance damages. Generally speaking, severance damages
to property are only recoverable when the remaining portion of a parcel of ground suffers by virtue of the purchase. In
this case a separate parcel located a half mile from the property that was taken was found to suffer severance
damages. The extension of severance damages to noncontiguous parcels appears to have no support in precedent
and if allowed to stand has the potential for causing public agencies to spend inordinate amounts of money to acquire
property for public purposes.
With regard to precondemnation activity by MWD, the court found that MWD had not engaged in any improper
precondemnation activity or delay. Nevertheless, the court allowed the property owner to introduce evidence of
precondemantion purchases of nearby property which allowed the jury to hear information which the court had ruled
basically was not improper conduct by MWD. This case deserves support so that the area of eminent domain law
does not become expanded beyond its current legal base.
FUNDING: Not applicable.
Respectfullsukmitted,
andall A. Hays, City Attorney
APPROVED:
H. Q4xon Flynn -- City Manager