238 Cal. App. 4th 1
Cal. Ct. App.2015Background
- Honchariw proposed to subdivide 33.7 acres in Knights Ferry into eight lots and one undeveloped parcel; planning commission denied Feb 2009 and Board of Supervisors disapproved Mar 2009; mandamus action challenging Board decision filed Jun 2009 and later litigated; 2011 appellate reversal directed reconsideration with findings; Board approved May 2012 after writ; December 2012 Honchariw filed inverse condemnation and due process claims seeking just compensation; successive demurrers led to December 2013 dismissal for untimeliness under §66499.37; January 2014 sanctions motion denied; March 2014 judgment of dismissal upheld on appeal with cross-appeal on sanctions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §66499.37 90-day clock applies to inverse condemnation here | Honchariw seeks two-step relief per Hensler/Kavanau | §66499.37 applies to all claims arising from Subdivision Map Act actions | Yes, §66499.37 applies to the inverse condemnation claim |
| Whether Hensler/Kavanau two-step exception applies | Two-step allows later damages after mandamus | Exception requires final judgment showing compensable taking | Exception applies only if mandamus alleges final compensable taking; not satisfied here |
| Whether Honchariw's pleadings meet the exception requirements | Mandamus presumed, supporting two-step | No final judgment alleging compensable taking; untimely | Inverse condemnation claim untimely under §66499.37 |
| Sanctions on plaintiff under CCP §128.7 | Sanctions were improper; arguments not frivolous | Pleading conduct frivolous due to untimeliness | Court did not abuse discretion; sanctions denied on merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Hensler v. City of Glendale, 8 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 1994) (90-day limitation governs inverse condemnation under Subdivision Map Act; two-step allowed if final judgment of taking exists)
- Kavanau v. Santa Monica Rent Control Bd., 16 Cal.4th 761 (Cal. 1997) (Two-step procedure described; requires finality of taking issue in mandamus context)
- Cochran v. Cochran, 65 Cal.App.4th 488 (Cal. App. 1998) (statute of limitations grounds may be raised by demurrer)
- Legacy Group v. City of Wasco, 106 Cal.App.4th 1305 (Cal. App. 2003) (statutory construction of §66499.37)