▪ Cal Supreme Court on "Quick Take" Procedures

In Mt. San Jacinto Community College v. Superior Court, the California Supreme Court addressed two constitutional issues regarding the quick-take process:

First, does a statutory property valuation date that occurs at the time the condemner deposits the probable compensation in court under section 1263.110, et seq. deny the property owner just compensation under the California Constitution when litigation in the eminent domain action is not expected to end until several years after the deposit is made? 

Second, is the owner’s statutory waiver of rights after withdrawing the funds an unconstitutional condition on the statutorily required “prompt release” of the deposit?

"Quick-take" is the procedure under which condemnors obtain immediate possession of property upon a deposit of estimated compensation to the court.  (The quick-take procedures are codified under Hawaii eminent domain law at Haw. Rev. Stat. § 101-28, -29, and -30.)  The opinion details the history of the development of the quick-take process in California, and concludes that the process does not deny just compensation. 

The property owner asserted that date of valuation should be moved forward in time, since it was undisputed that the market value of the condemned property had risen in value since the date of deposit, while the property owner challenged the condemnor's ability to take under California's public use clause.  The owner argued that this allows the condemnor to gamble on a rising market: it may artificially freeze the date of valuation by depositing the estimated compensation which works to its advantage if the market rises, but may abandon the condemnation if the market value unexpectedly falls. 

Additionally, California law, like Haw. Rev. Stat. § 101-31, states that the property owner waives public use challenges if it withdraws the deposit.  The court held this is permissible, and does not place unconstitutional conditions on the right of just compensation, or force the owner to make a "Catch-22" choice: take the money and waive further challenge; or forego withdrawing the deposit but perhaps lack the means to continue the fight.

The Hawaii Supreme Court has never dealt with either of these issues.  The California Supreme Court's opinion here.