Loansafe.org reports that Rancho Cordova has just had a rude awakening. Back in 2007 the Los Rios Community College District agreed to buy a 9.6-acre parcel from the Lilly Co. for a satellite campus for $8.6 million.  But then the Rancho Cordova redevelopment agency filed an eminent domain action, seeking to take the subject parcel for $387,000 (i.e., $2.2 million, less $1.8 million in cleanup costs). That caused Los Rios to back out of the deal, and later  resulted in a settlement for breach of contract in favor of Lilly in the amount of $60,000.

But when the eminent domain case went to trial, the jury disagreed with the agency and awarded $7.9 million. Faced with that verdict, the Rancho Cordova redevelopment agency abandoned the condemnation, but under California law, it had to pay Lilly $900,000 in litigation expenses (including attorneys and appraisers’ fees). The city also incurred legal expenses of its own in the amount of $1.2 million.

Then came the unexpected. The California legislature abolished redevelopment, and the state supreme court upheld that law as constitutional. Since the redevelopment agency thus ceased to exist, its assets and liabilities shifted to the city of Rancho Codova which is now on the hook in favor of Lilly to the tune of over $2 million, and Lilly still owns the 9.6-acre subject property.

For the story go to http://www.loansafe.org/city-a-big-loser-in-land-fight

We are reliably informed that yesterday, following a five-week trial, a jury in Riverside, California, returned a verdict in the taking of a 233-acre flowage easement, plus a small taking in fee simple and a small temporary construction easement. The figures were as follows. Condemnor’s evidence – $2,300,000. Owner’s evidence – $17,007,166. The jury verdict was $15,000,005, or 6.5 times the condemnor’s figure.

The case is Orange County Flood Control District v. Altfillisch Construction Co., and the taking was for
occasional floodwater storage that would be needed as a result of a modification of the Prado Dam.

The controversy centered on whether the subject property was developable. The condemnor argued that it was not, because it was in a floodway of the Santa Ana River. The owners disagreed and contended that by a process of modifying the floodway through FEMA and filling some wetlands (for which obtaining necessary permits was probable) the property could be developed, and this enhanced its fair market value way above the its value as raw unusable land.

The smiling counsel for the property owners is Ed Burg of Manatt, Phelps & Phillips in Los Angeles.

The Los Angeles Daily Journal of June 22, 2012 (Jury Orders Utility to Pay Property Owners), reports the results of a two-week eminent domain trial in San Diego, as follows. The evidence of value presented by San Diego Gas & Electric Co., the condemnor, was $701,400. The jury award (evidently accepting the owners’ valuation evidence) was $8 million.

The Daily Journal article is a bit sketchy on details (it does not report what the condemnor’s pre-litigation offer was, nor the actual amount of land taken out of the owners’ 115-acre larger parcel), but it appears that the bone of contention was the value of minerals under the subject property, consisting of “granite deposits used in concrete, asphalt and other construction projects [sic].” The owners contended that the taking would interfere with mining. The condemnor contended that the property’s highest and best use was for low-density residential. Evidently, the jury disagreed.

Seacostonline.com of June 20, 2012, reports a jury verdict in Portsmouth, for the taking of two easments across a business property — a bicycle shop named Papa Wheelies. Elizabeth Dinan, City Loses Eminent Domain Lawsuit, Ordered to Pay $125K. The article does not report the city’s offer but its evidence at trial was $18,500. The opinion of the State Land Board (which we presume is sort of like commissioners) was $27,000. The jury verdict was $125,000, or over six times the city’s evidence. To get the story, click here.

We just came across a Texas Court of Appeals decision in an eminent domain case in which the bone of contention was the reduction in the rental rate of the remainder of the subject property in its “after” copndition. There was no controversy as to the value of the part taken ($385,524).

The figures were as follows: Commissioners’ award was $1,748,000. Condemnor’s trial evidence, in the court’s words, was “$847,857 or $1,114,576, depending on which method of valuation was used.” The jury award was $385,424 for the part taken, plus $3,229,745 for damages to the remainder. After adding prejudgment interest, the award came to $3,747,651.27.

The condemnor appealed. Held: affirmed. State v. State Street Bank & Trust Co. (Tex.App. 2012) 359 S.W.3d 375.

Remember the Gyrodyne case? That was the one decided by the New York Appellate Division last November, where the state of New York took 245.5 acres for expansion of the Stony Brook campus of the NY State University. Quick summary: The State deposited $26,315,000, but the trial court (that’s the New York Court of Claims) awarded an additional $98,685,000. The State appealed but the New York Appellate Division affirmed. The State then petitioned the New York Court of Appeals (that State’s highest court) for review which was denied on June 6, 2012. So adding this up, and including the interest which is still accruing, the State got hit for a total of $164,000,000.

Also, the court awarded $1,474,940 to Gyrodyne as reikmbursement for its litigation expenses.

For Gyrodyne’s press release reporting these latest events, click here.

What we find fascinating is that with boxcar figures like that being involved, you’d think that this case would be noteworthy news. But we haven’t found much in the general press on that one. Wonder why? We don’t know how you feel about that one, but it seems to us that if, in some inter-corporate dispute,  a court were to award and affirm a judgment representing an upward “bump” of nine  figures, surely that would make the newspapers. Don’t you think so?

Follow up. We are reliably informed that interest in this case started accruing in 2005 when the State took the subject property, and is running at some $30 million per year, and, roughly speaking,  has accumulated as of now to somewhere north of $150 million.

The Las Vegas Sun reports the settlement of an eminent domain action by the city of Henderson. Connor Shine, Henderson to Pay $500,000 to Settle Eminent Domain Suit, Las Vegas Sun, June 5, 2012.  Click here.  

The taking was of 4.6 acres for a sewer easement, plus a road that would serve M Resorts, and “the stalled Inspirada development.” The city evidently settled because it feared that a trial would result in much higher figures than its offer, which would also require it to pay the owner’s attorney fees in addition to the value of the taken land.

The city offered $883,400, and the owner demanded $7 million. The final settlement figures were: $500,000 paid by the city in addition to its $883,400 offer/deposit, plus another $1,000,000 paid by M Resorts, for a total of $2,483,400.

Not much to say on this one, except to provide a link to the Owners’ Counsel blog. Here it is: http://ownerscounsel.blogspot.com/2012/05/new-orleans-eminent-domain-attorneys.html. It’s headlined:

“New Orleans Eminent Domain Attorney Secures More Than $9 Million Just Compensation for Private Property in Hospital Project Footprint.”

The State’s offer was $4,500,000.

Though our information is a bit short on details, we are reliably informed that in the case of In the Matter of Paolella, Supreme Court Richmond County, New York, Index No. 4018/07, decision filed May 7, 2012, the trial court awarded $810,000 in an eminent domain case involving wetlands, in which the city’s opinion of damages was $185,000. The award was thus over four times the city’s contention.

For the benefit of readers who are not acquainted with New York matters, over there the Supreme Court is a trial court — the lowest court of general jurisdiction (the highest New York court is called the Court of Appeals), and Richmond County is Staten Island, one of the five boroughs of New York City.

Chicagotribune.com reports a settlement of an eminent domain case in St. Paul. Frederick Melo, St. Paul Deli Gets $1 Million Settlement Over Easement Dispute, Chicago Tribune, May 9, 2012. Click here.  The property was a deli/convenience store/gas station. The taking was for a road improvement.

The figures were as follows: the County’s original offer was $280,000, which was revised up to $465,000. The Commissioners awarded $867,000. Both sides appealed the Commissioners’ award but the jury trial did not take place because the case just settled for $1,000,000, which includes reimbursement of  attorneys’ and expert witnesses’ fees.