Here’s the first of two cases about the recovery of attorneys fees in takings cases.
The first is People ex rel. Dep’t of Transportation v. Superior Court, No. C069391 (Mar. 1, 2012), from the California Court of Appeal, about recovery of fees in eminent domain proceedings.
After a stipulated judgment days before the trial was to commence, the trial court awarded the property owners their litigation expenses under the California statute allowing the court to include those expenses as part of the costs if the condemnor’s offer was unreasonable, and the property owner’s demand was reasonable. Here’s the relevant provision:
If the court, on motion of the defendant made within 30 days after entry of judgment, finds that the offer of the plaintiff was unreasonable and that the demand of the defendant was reasonable viewed in the light of the evidence admitted and the compensation awarded in the proceeding, the costs allowed pursuant to Section 1268.710 shall include the defendant’s litigation expenses.
The court of appeal reversed (actually, granted the writ of mandate – remember, this is California), and held that in order to trigger the statute, there must be a trial, and not a stipulated judgment after the condemnor accepted the property owners’ demand. The language “in light of the evidence admitted and the compensation awarded in the proceeding,” shows that the legislature intended there to have been a trial.
The court also concluded that “[t]he focus of the statute is a case in which the government’s unreasonable conduct forces the matter to trial.” Slip op. at 8. Since the government accepted the property owners’ demand, even though it did so on the eve of trial and 15 days after the demand was made, it did not force the matter to trial and the property owners were not entitled to recover.
People ex rel. Dep’t of Transportation v. Superior Court, No. C069391 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 1, 2012)