City of Corona v. Liston Brick Co.
145 Cal. Rptr. 3d 702
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- City of Corona sought to condemn easements over Liston Brick Company property (1.45 acres total; subject property) for road widening; trial court excluded Perdue appraisal and RCTC agreement under Evidence Code § 822(a); Liston designated a valuation expert (Hall) relying on the RCTC agreement; City deposited $120,200 as probable compensation and Liston later waived contest by withdrawing deposit; parties stipulated to judgment awarding $181,000 and preserving Liston’s appellate rights; Liston appealed contending cross-examination of the City’s expert with excluded material was permissible; court addressed whether cross-examination exception exists and whether exclusion was proper under § 822(a).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cross-examination exception to § 822(a)? | Liston argues Stevenson creates a cross-examination exception. | City argues no cross-examination exception exists; § 822(a) bars use of excluded matter. | Stevenson does not create a cross-examination exception; improper for cross-examination. |
| Admissibility of Perdue appraisal under § 822(a)(4)? | Perdue appraisal should be admissible for cross-examination or as basis for valuation. | Perdue valued entire fee simple; § 822(a)(4) excludes value of different property interest. | Excluded; Perdue relates to a different property interest (fee simple vs. easements). |
| Admissibility of the RCTC agreement under § 822(a)(1)/(a)(2)? | RCTC agreement should be admissible for cross-examination or valuation. | § 822(a)(1)/(a)(2) exclude acquisition price/terms for public use and option terms. | Excluded; Liston forfeited challenge and cross-exam use not permitted. |
| Effect of Stevenson and Law Revision Commission comment? | Stevenson should be controlling; commission comment supports cross-examination use. | Commission comment indicates limited cross-examination purpose; Stevenson may be outdated. | Stevenson not controlling; commission comment suggests cross-examination limited to whether basis for opinion is improper. |
Key Cases Cited
- State Pub. Wks. Bd. v. Stevenson, 5 Cal.App.3d 60 (Cal. App. 1970) (no cross-examination exception; admissibility limited to prior inconsistent valuation if applicable)
- People ex rel. Dep’t of Pub. Wks. v. Amsden Corp., 33 Cal.App.3d 83 (Cal. App. 1973) (cross-examination on offers but § 822 controls; pre-1977 cases superseded by § 822)
- City of Los Angeles v. Waller, 90 Cal.App.3d 766 (Cal. App. 1979) (followed Stevenson on cross-examination related to excluded evidence)
- Ventura County Flood Control Dist. v. Campbell, 71 Cal.App.4th 211 (Cal. App. 1999) (test for value excluding public-sale-price circumstances under § 822)