John M. and Frances Morehart v. County of Santa Barbara, Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Barbara
Published: Feb. 4, 1995 | Result Date: Jan. 3, 1995 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: 176474 – $645,000
Judge
Court
Santa Barbara Superior
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Defendant
Experts
Plaintiff
James W. Hammock
(technical)
Defendant
Warren Reeder
(technical)
Facts
The Plaintiff Moreharts own a 3.7-acre parcel in the Naples Townsite, comprising approximately 900 acres of coastal land located 15 miles west of Santa Barbara. The Naples Townsite was created by an 1888 subdivision map filed in the records of Defendant Santa Barbara County. The Moreharts sought a coastal development permit from the County of Santa Barbara for the purpose of building a single-family dwelling on their 3.7-acre parcel. The application was denied by the County on the grounds that it was inconsistent with the County's Antiquated Subdivision Ordinance which required that undersized, non-conforming parcels "... be combined (i.e., merged) in order to comply to the maximum extent possible with current zoning density standards." In this case, the current zoning is 100 acres, meaning that the Moreharts would have had to combine their 3.7-acre parcel with at least 26 contiguous lots owned by others, in order to build their home. Contending that the ordinances were preempted by the merger provisions of the California Subdivision Map Act, the Moreharts petitioned for a writ of mandate in 1989. The trial Court held that the ordinances were invalid in a 1991 ruling. The County appealed the case to the Court of appeal, which overturned the trial Court's ruling. The Moreharts petitioned the California Supreme Court for review of the case. The Supreme Court granted review and reversed the Court of Appeal, agreeing with the Moreharts and the trial Court, that the County's action was preempted by overriding state law. The Moreharts then petitioned the Superior Court to award them their reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to the Private Attorney General Doctrine codified in the Code of Civil Procedure Section 1021.5, arguing that, because they are the successful party in an action and an appeal that has resulted in the enforcement of important rights affecting the public interest and conferring significant benefits on the general public, they are entitled to such fees.
Settlement Discussions
The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendant County of Santa Barbara offered $295,000 for attorney fees and $94,245 for the damage phase of the case; Plaintiffs demanded $370,000 attorney fees and $400,000 for temporary takings damages.
Damages
The Moreharts claimed $370,000 in attorney fees (The County offered $295,000 and the parties settled the attorney fees claim for $345,000). The Moreharts also reactivated the inverse condemnation and civil rights damage phase of the case which had been severed by the trial Court from the mandamus phase in 1990. The Moreharts claimed temporary takings damages of approximately $400,000 for the unlawful denial of land use entitlements on the lot in question over a 6-year period. (The County offered $94,245 in settlement of the damage phase of the case; the parties settled the damage action for $300,000.)
Other Information
Although case I.D. is kept confidential in normal settlement reporting, we have made an exception here due to the high media coverage of this case. There is another action pending against the County by the owners of the other 353 parcels within the Naples Townsite for inverse condemnation and denial of civil rights. This action, Santa Barbara Superior Court Case number 179265, seeks money damages against the County in the approximate amount of $140,000,000 for the denial of land use entitlements and civil rights as to these other owners from 1984 to the present.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390