County of Glenn v. Foley
151 Cal. Rptr. 3d 8
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- This eminent domain action seeks ~439 acres for landfill expansion; County stipulated to appraisal value after in limine exclusion of defense appraiser’s testimony.
- Foley, trustee of a marital trust holding Foley property, timely appealed the judgment.
- County submitted expert House’s orchard-based valuation and Howard’s grazing-based value; House used comparable sales with adjustments.
- County claimed House violated Evidence Code § 822(a)(4) by valuing non-land components and that House’s comparables were not sufficiently alike under § 816.
- Trial court initially excluded House’s adjustments under § 822 and later ruled the subject property was not comparable to those sales under § 816.
- Judgment reversed on appeal; remanded to deny the motion in limine; Foley to recover appellate costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly excluded House’s adjustments under § 822(a)(4) and § 816. | Foley argues exclusion eviscerates his appraisal evidence; questions the comparability and methodology. | County argues adjustments to comparables are inadmissible under § 822 and that the sales are not sufficiently comparable. | Exclusion improper; § 822 does not bar House’s adjustments; comparables may shed light on value under § 816. |
| Whether the trial court could rely on the Howard deposition not submitted with the motion in limine. | Foley contends the court improperly relied on deposition evidence not presented with the motion. | County maintains de novo review renders deposition immaterial. | Deposition evidence disregarded for the de novo review, but it does not support exclusion of House’s testimony. |
| Whether § 816’s shedding-light standard supports admitting the House comparables. | House comparables, though not identical, can provide rational inference on value for orchard use. | The comparables must be sufficiently alike and reliably relevant to value. | House comparables can shed light on value; not excluded as a matter of law; jury question. |
| Whether the trial court’s use of the motion in limine to end Foley’s case violated due process or jury trial rights. | Use of limine to preclude the case undermines jury’s determination of just compensation. | Limine rulings do not automatically deny jury trial rights in eminent domain when evidence is improperly admitted. | Constitutional jury rights not violated; but the ruling’s basis was incorrect; reversal warranted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Merced Irrigation Dist. v. Woolstenhulme, 4 Cal.3d 478 (Cal. 1971) (adjustments to comparable sales; essential to valuation admissibility)
- Emeryville Redevelopment Agency v. Harcros Pigments, Inc., 101 Cal.App.4th 1083 (Cal. App. 2002) (section 822 exclusion; not controlling where not properly applied)
- State of Cal. ex rel. State Pub. Wks. Bd. v. Stevenson, 5 Cal.App.3d 60 (Cal. App. 1970) (opinion evidence and comparable-sale adjustments; collateral questions)
- Retlaw Enterprises, Inc. v. County of Los Angeles, 16 Cal.3d 473 (Cal. 1976) (shedding light on value; relevance standard under § 816)
- County of Los Angeles v. Union Distributing Co., 260 Cal.App.2d 125 (Cal. App. 1968) (adjustments to comparable sales; admissibility under § 822)
- City of Corona v. Liston Brick Co., 208 Cal.App.4th 536 (Cal. App. 2012) (section 822 exclusion and appraisal testimony)