This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Real Property
Government Liability
Permits/Licenses

Barratt American Inc. v. Orange County

Published: Jul. 9, 2005 | Result Date: Apr. 8, 2005 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 814037 Bench Decision –  $4,500,000

Judge

C. Robert Jameson

Court

Orange Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Walter P. McNeill
(McNeill Law Offices)


Defendant

Jeffrey V. Dunn
(Best, Best & Krieger LLP)


Facts

Plaintiff is Barratt American Inc., a national homebuilding company with its primary business in Southern California. Between 1994 and 1999, defendant Orange County collected a revenue surplus of $18.5 million from fees for building permits and plan reviews. Accordingly, the defendant reduced its fees by 28 percent and then five percent to eliminate the surplus by charging fees less than the future costs of providing services and provided an additional $8 million of general fund revenue to subside the permit and plan review services after the surplus was exhausted.

Damages

The plaintiff claimed that it and other builders suffered economic losses during the years in which the defendant was overcharging them on inspection and other fees.

Result

In the first phase of trial, the court found that the defendant had the burden of proving the disposition of the surplus was in compliance with state law. In the second phase, the court ruled that any portion of the $18.5 million that the defendant had spent on reasonable building department services would be credited as having the effect of reducing future fees. In the last phase, the court called on a special master and court expert to determine where the money had gone and concluded the defendant had spent $14 million on reasonable building department services, but that the defendant could not justify the remaining $4.5 million spent in providing building permit and plan review services. Therefore, the court did not award any damages but ruled the defendant should reduce future fees for $4.5 million. Post-trial, the court awarded the plaintiff attorney fees, finding the plaintiff's counsel acted as a private attorney general and that the lawsuit resulted in a substantial benefit to the public. The defendant have appealed the judgment.


#123715

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390