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
Eminent Domain
Condemnation

City of San Diego v. Barratt American Inc.

Published: May 18, 2004 | Result Date: Jan. 7, 2004 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: GIC7713441 Verdict –  $4,351,350

Judge

William R. Nevitt Jr.

Court

San Diego Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

David Skinner

Robert Chojnacki

Anita M. Noone

Leslie A. Fitzgerald

Casey Gwinn


Defendant

Douglas J. Dennington
(Rutan & Tucker LLP)

Jeffrey M. Oderman
(Rutan & Tucker LLP)

Steven Wall

Antony Nash


Experts

Plaintiff

Gary Halbert
(technical)

William M. Dumka
(technical)

Stephen D. Roach
(technical)

Defendant

Raymond Martin
(technical)

Michael F. Waldron
(technical)

Nicholas DeLorenzo
(technical)

Facts

The City of San Diego filed the eminent domain action to condemn approximately 5.04 acres of the defendants' land for the construction of Unit 2 of the Middle Segment of the SR-56 freeway. The issues in the case were the fair market value of the part taken as of the Nov. 16, 2001 date of value; the amount of severance damages, if any, to the defendants' remaining land; and what amount of project benefits, if any were generated to offset the severance damages.

Settlement Discussions

The plaintiff's precondemnation offer was $1,512,000. The plaintiff's final offer prior to trial was $2,270,000. The defendants' final offer prior to trial was $3,950,000, $1.7 million below their appraisal figure.

Result

The jury returned a verdict awarding $3.5 million for the fair market value of the part taken, plus $851,350 for severance benefits. The jury found no project benefits. The plaintiff has appealed the verdict.

Other Information

The plaintiff filed a motion for a new trial which was denied by the court. The defendants filed a motion for litigation expenses which was granted. The court awarded the defendants an additional $577,784 in attorney and expert fees. During trial, the plaintiff filed a motion requesting that the court reinstruct the jury or declare a mistrial. The plaintiff argued that the court had erred when it instructed the jury that they must consider the freeway project enhancement in determining whether there was a reasonable probability of a zone change.

Deliberation

two days

Length

10 days


#95798

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

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