208 Cal. App. 4th 584
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- Vieira installed two manufactured homes on two lots in East Palo Alto under contracts with the Wilsons to deliver, install on foundations, and retain title until full payment.
- The homes were financed later by Polo, which foreclosed and conveyed title to Polo’s successor, Coast Capital, in 2007.
- Coast Capital applied for notices of installation under Health & Safety Code section 18551 after foreclosure, asserting ownership of the homes and the lots.
- Pouya, the City’s acting building official, issued the notices on December 10, 2007, without a title search and without expertise in manufactured-home installations.
- Vieira recorded mechanic’s liens in February 2006 asserting a lien on the full contract amounts, and later sued the Wilsons, City, and others for due process and inverse condemnation.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the City defendants, holding under common law that the homes became fixtures before the notices, thus extinguishing Vieira’s property interest; Vieira appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Vieira had a protected property interest at the time of the notices. | Vieira claims the homes remained chattel until notices transformed them. | City asserts homes were fixtures under common law before notices. | Vieira had no property interest at notice time; homes were fixtures. |
| Whether §18551 preempts the common law of fixtures for assessing just compensation. | Vieira argues §18551 preempts fixture analysis; notices create a takings issue. | Escondido controls; §18551 does not govern just compensation or fixture law. | §18551 does not preempt the common law of fixtures. |
| Whether §18551 is applicable to condemnation/takings analysis. | Vieira relies on §18551 to classify homes for tax/regulatory purposes. | Statute relates to regulation, taxation, and permits, not just compensation. | §18551 is inapplicable to just compensation/takings analysis. |
| Whether the notices altered the homes’ character for due process claims. | Property was improperly taken or damaged upon notices. | No taking occurred since ownership vested with foreclosing grantee and fixtures existed prior to notices. | No substantive due process or inverse condemnation violation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Escondido Union High Sch. Dist. v. Casa Sueños De Oro, Inc., 129 Cal.App.4th 944 (Cal.App.4th 2005) (three-prong fixture test; notices do not regulate eminent domain)
- Cornell v. Sennes, 18 Cal.App.3d 126 (Cal.App.3d 1971) (intent, adaptation, and annexation factors for fixtures)
- Redevelopment Agency v. Gilmore, 38 Cal.3d 790 (Cal. 1985) (just compensation cannot be overridden by later statutes)
- San Diego Gas & Electric Co. v. Superior Court, 13 Cal.4th 893 (Cal. 1996) (inverse condemnation framework and property interests)