*1 Dist., 5, 1969.] No. Second 31717. Div. Two. Feb. [Civ. EXCELSIOR UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT OF LOS COUNTY, Appellant, Plaintiff and ANGELES MI v. al.,
NIE MARGARET LAUTRUP et Defendants Respondents. *2 D, Maharg, County Counsel, Kennedy and John Harold W. Flon, Counsel, for De County and Alfred Charles Deputy Appellant. Plaintiff and George Jr., Atkinson, Baggot E. for Defend- Thomas G. Respondents. ants High Union HERNDON, J. District Excelsior pro- County, plaintiff in this eminent domain Angeles
Los awarding from the trial court’s order ceeding, appeals $77,265 attorneys’ respondents a total defendants and *3 proceeding. of the following plaintiff’s abandonment fees provisions pursuant to of 1255a made the section award was the Procedure. of Code of Civil facilitating understanding reader’s purpose the For the in to be recited our statement of the of the facts relevance summary appel- forth this shall first set brief ease, the we namely: contentions, lant’s basic erroneously in based its award (1) That the trial court respondents’ implied finding part upon an attor- either neys proceeding abandonment” of the or the “caused respondents between provisions of contracts their the agreed attorneys respondents pay to counsel not less wherein in the abandonment. $100,000 event of than fixing respondents to amount be allowed (2) That in prop- attorneys, the trial court of their could the services erly into consideration services of counsel take appellant’s governing board to abandon the which influenced proceeding. by (3) made trial court based in That the award was part upon involving “political representa- substantial services notwithstanding propriety tion,” services, which compensable properly are not respondents, to their value 1255a. provisions of section under opinion, develop in the course of we shall For reasons assignments of error well these none of have concluded affirmed. order should taken and complaint seeking appellant filed its February 1963, On approximately 27.7 site high school as a acquire for use to south- and located respondents by owned of land acres Valley Avenue View Imperial Highway and west corner one The land constituted Mirada, California. City of La rapidly in this parcels of land large remaining last of the earnestly desired retain it respondents developing area and efforts vigorous and continued by their indicated project. abandon persuade district to the school for Norman acting as Atkinson, Jr., George attorney was E. Lautrup, who Niels P. H. estate of Lautrup, of the executor The estate filing of this action. shortly before died property and Minnie Mar- in the interest a one-half owned remaining interest. one-half Lautrup garet owned represented appellant that he Although Atkinson notified Mr. filing permission to withhold owners, and received do, he allowed complaint so to until notified answers for several directly the owners appellant negotiate an amicable participation his the end that months without possible. might if settlement be achieved effect, ‘-‘associ- negotiations he, failed When settlement defense of Baggot assist him the ated” appellant’s Thomas Mr. G. employment Lautrup executed action. Minnie 1963, in Baggot with Mr. on November contract schedule, Mr. agreed a certain accordance with upon percent- contingent Baggot fee based was to receive Lautrup in excess age by all sums received Minnie prop- in the interest by appellant amount for her offered her by erty. executed contract was On the same date an identical This latter Lautrup, as executor. Mr. Atkinson and Norman Each of these approved probate contract court. provision: following contracts contained the express or abandonment, either “That the event of an action, said operation District of law, by said School attor- a reasonable undersigned pay [attorney] *4 the ney’s will performed for his services fee, $50,000.00 not less than performed up any service and for to the time of abandonment including, not abandonment, relationship to said securing upon limited the of said fee abandonment from said School District. Appellant offered $864,000, approximately the owners or per square foot, property. figure $.72 for their appar- This represented ently opinion the appellant’s of value of one of appraisers substantially who had used a valuation date earlier than would have used at the if proceeding been trial the had appraisers opined been abandoned. The owners’ two property the $1,900,000 was worth $1,700,000, respec- tively, property as of the correct valuation date. The had been appraised probate by proceeding the the tax inheritance appraiser $1,363,700although he used an even earlier appellant’s valuation date than had appraisers. Appellant’s complaint sought also to condemn another parcel allegedly property smaller less valuable owned
persons respondents. Appellant purchased other than this during property pendency the óf proceeding $170;000, for or approximately per square In addition, $1.28 on foot. Janu- ary 1964, respondents 29, allegedly received a bona fide offer $1,900,000 upon contingent the condemna- being rejected. tion action abandoned. This offer (cid:127) speculate not, We need and do not, as to the amount might respondents compensation trier of fact have awarded subject property if the action had been tried. The foregoing recital, however, sufficiently indicates extent subject litigation value of the matter of the importance parties. pleadings filed a herein were of terse and standard particularly variety case, but as in in a condemnation action, portion usually only very these formal records reflect small attorney’s product proceeding. work in the Initially, value, matters in issue were date question property, fair market value and the of sever- any. damages, However, August 1964, if 3, ance the initial -pretrial amended, and order was amended conference answers filed, concerning issue were eliminate the severance dam- present namely, ages issue, another whether or not the and to property was, fact, being public taken use. pending,
While the instant action was on or about October appellant 1964, was held electors election High propositions pre- Excelsior District Union territory senting or not whole whether formed into two unified school districts. district should be proposals adopted and on ultimately These June *5 legal entity. We need not appellant exist 1965, ceased to newly unified or not the created whether consider the subject property might have located in the district which governing that its board for the reason the action continued County February “that the 18,1965, on unanimously resolved drop present the requested to condemna- Officebe Counsel’s Lautrup property negotiate and to pending on the tion suit ’’ a settlement the suit. property owners on with the appellant’s governing 1965, board also April 30, the On County the Counsel’s unanimously to “authorize resolved Lautrup on proceed abandon condemnation action office pay necessary steps to proceed abandon- Dairy site and with attorneys respondents’ pointed out ment As costs.” the board who moved seconded court, trial the members of deposi- members thereof whose were the two resolution preparation on respondents in for trial tions had been taken public the issue of use. respondents’ judgment for motion On December judgment granted and was entered with of dismissal was for and disbursements to be the allowed costs amounts to be In their direct later and inserted. addition to determined recovery sought expended costs, respondents the sums court appraisal $50,000 for fees their for respective attorneys. Following fees and each the hearing the extended documentary, the trial receipt of evidence both oral court present from July 18, 1966, entered the order which the appeal is taken. appellant’s assignment of We now return to first ‘‘ part The
error which it has stated as follows: trial court $77,265.00. attorneys’ award of fees of sum of based its [the $39,540 $37,725 Baggot] upon Mr. Atkinson and to Mr. one improper upon implicit (1) or ings two factors: the find- both of attorneys the that efforts of one or both of defendants’ responsible causing abandonment; (2) were for attorneys clients, their contracts between each of provided attorney $50,000 for fees of not less than attorney regardless abandonment case of value of services rendered. nothing find and hold We that there is whatever support assumption record to that the trial court based upon factors, except either of in a award these expressed thought discussion counsel with evaluating accomplished legal the result services should be regarded as a relevant consideration. ’
Respondents employment contracts their counsel any objection. The into without trial introduced evidence repeatedly respondents, empha- court, and both counsel reemphasized agreement with the observation sized appellant that not binding these contracts were of counsel Apparently were offered and the court. received indicating importance solely purpose which the parties services of their counsel and their attached to the view potential upon the happening value of such services contingencies. nothing indicate certain There gave any fixing weight court putable to them the award. indis- $10,000 trial court awarded over fact less to obligated than attorney way of fees his client was each *6 improper demonstrates that no reliance pay therefor was which, as placed said, on these have re- contracts were objection. in ceived evidence without Appellant major portion quotations to devotes a of its brief arguments respondents’ from the testimony from the of purpose convincing they the court that counsel for of this “causing given credit the were for abandonment” their designed develop public “political” efforts sentiment in promote project and to opposition to the the creation the favoring officials new unified districts the election of abandonment. first most salient observation that should be made entirety point is of this “evidence” was on this that objection by appellant. fact,
received without As a matter developed very largely by appellant’s “issue” cross- this examination was apparent attempt respondents’ witnesses in an the trial the efforts of their counsel had to convince court that they no that not be rewarded little or should been of value changes political of the that fortuitous had by reason fact purpose proceeding. “frustrated” hearing point during presently under review did At no appellant they regarded as so much hint that as counsel improper part any respondents’ or conduct on the counsel appellant’s contending that decision aban- that any involuntary instant in sense. On the action was don the sought prove contrary, appellant that deci- counsel for voluntary entirely project was sion to abandon the respondents’ counsel, designed to establish that the efforts of permis- good faith for being taken property was not grossly had underestimated the public use, and that it sible any effect it what- project, of its been without costs soever. appellant’s contention the trial court essence, In it was award, given fixing no credit should be for the ’ 1‘ ’’ respondents counsel because those the efforts of results of in bringing factors about not effective causative efforts were the abandonment. judge trial his com- this directed It was to issue dissenting opinion quoted herein. out of context ment itself that it is not "the statement of This comment impor- representation] [political such services considered ’’ it is contrary, in the case. On tant factor manifest from judge trial con- quotation that this comment itself compensation intention award no indication his stitutes might “political repre- any as services he classified sentation.It amounts to no more than a correct observation the result of counsel to achieved was that the contribution respondents prop- important quite "an erly responded by factor.” Counsel expressing concurring contrary view, appellant’s below, in the court that the result contention important "gets factor and one that was indeed an achieved labyrinth us of cause and effect. into emphasized that the trial court not called It should be any express finding upon to declaration or definitive make part of services were to treated to indicate what counsel’s because, political noncompensable as we have indi- as never trial court. cated, appellant raised issue finding express implied, either or fact, There is no ing indicat- "political” activities, any weight given to properly could reach this now such. If there were we *7 urged appeal. respondents by appellant for the first time on If "political” of sought to introduce evidence activ- had objected thereto; objec- if an appellant if such ities ; overruled, had been we would have occasion to consider tion developed appellant However, the evidence this issue. itself dissenting (quoted length opinion) an effort ’ given any respondents counsel should not be credit show say, is for action, in this for the "result” achieved governing proceeding convincing appellant’s board that the should be abandoned. say heard to that the Obviously appellant cannot now be appellant itself receiving evidence which trial court erred developed Having created and elicited and introduced. theory position appellant is to reverse issue, in no now 442 contend that counsel compensation were entitled to no for services which influenced its decision to project. abandon the (Glendale Rossmoyne Dist. v. Vista del Co., Unified Cal.App.2d 493, 232 Cal.Rptr. 496-497 3 899]; Cal.Jur.2d, [42
Appeal
140,
142,pp. 604, 607.)
Error §§
Port
In both
San Luis Harbor Dist. v. Port
San Luis
of
Transp. Co.,
Cal.App.2d
213
Cal.Rptr. 136], and
[29
Co.,
State
v. Westover
School Dist. 309, v. Cal.Rptr. Cal.2d 318 [19 7], right 369 P.2d “The award costs is .. . purely statutory. Code of Civil Procedure section- [Citations.] plaintiff’s authorizes, 1255a abandonment anof emi- proceeding, recovery nent domain ments, of ‘costs and disburse- necessary expenses which shall all include incurred in preparing during attorney trial and trial and reasonable for ” (Italics (P. added.) 312) fees.’ ‘‘ course, Of defendant cannot recover fees Ms attorney proposed incurred in taking connection of his preparation unless such fees were incurred for It the defense of the action. is those services rendered preparation proposed the trial action that are It recoverable. the trial court to determine what services preparation were rendered in trial and the reasonable (Italics added.) (P. 318) such services.” value of boundary may compensable It is inevitable that the between noneompensable susceptible services always delineation, precise Nevertheless, drawing of such province court, being line is within the of the trial and there nothing present justify in the record to a conclusion
443 presumed. Conten- not be improperly drawn, error should was tions urged appellant in this case were to those identical Dist. v. Port San Luis Harbor San rejected in Port p. fol- Cal.App.2d 695, Co., supra, 213 Transp Luis lowing apposite language: matters referred some of the other that “It seem summary services], of his such for defendant’s counsel [in grand jury and confer- foreman of the conference subject legislation on the of If new proposed regarding ences for trial. preparation not services condemnation, were being matters as services regarded some of such not judge the in might that he trial, it well be found preparation for portion serv- were not a substantial that services those comparatively inconsequential and
ices rendered ignored determining and should negligible in value legal properly cannot be con- services. It reasonable value attorneys’ services the court awarded cluded fees for preparation the trial. The not rendered in which were awarding $125,000 as did abuse discretion court not ” (Italics attorneys’ added.) fees. Port San Luis Harbor Dist. v. noted that in may It also be supra, Cal.App.2d Transp. Co., 213 Luis Port San $125,000 the full awarded defendant therein trial court appellate necessary for the requested and therefore it noncompensable any items of conclude that work court to recital of the services for which in the claimant’s included ‘1inconsequential neg- compensation was claimed were case, however, In the trial ligible the instant value.” $100,000 requested $77,265, allowance of reduced the reject thereby providing further for this court to reason assumption compensation that it awarded unwarranted during of service alluded to the trial of this issue items not that are entitled consideration. 225 Co., v. M. & Tile As in Decoto School Dist. S. observed Cal.Rptr. Cal.App.2d 314-315, : “In our 225] [37 spirit 1255a is to opinion, letter and of section make attorney for the fees incurred
defendant whole reasonable eminent domain him in connection with the of an defense voluntarily has action which the condemner abandoned. ” 314-315) (Pages [Citations.] philosophy “Moreover, depart while from the we would ought a landowner to be made whole where eminent pursuant 1255a, proceedings to section are abandoned domain concept necessarily should do not subscribe to he according to his notions thereof or be made whole (Page 316.) claimed him.” extent *9 Having rejected appellant’s specific assignment of to error, we now turn a consideration of the contention the award excessive as a matter of law. Since this is conten- necessarily equivalent is to an assertion that the tion evidence finding support to the trial is insufficient court’s that the being reasonably evaluated services worth the amount complete awarded, appellant’s failure to set in forth its brief a fair statement of the evidence record relevant this to appel- issue constitutes a violation of a fundamental rule of (Davis practice procedure. Lucas, Cal.App.2d late 180 v. Cal.Rptr. 479].) 407, 409-410 [4 Nevertheless, sufficiency to demonstrate of the evidence support to the award under shall review we summarize some bearing upon of the evidence relevant considerations such as litigation], required “the amount involved skill [in handling, employed, given, its attorney’s the skill the attention . . the . learning, including experi- age skill his Mesa-Spring particular type (La ence of work demanded.” ley Otsuka, School Dist. supra, v. 57 Cal.2d Val 316.) investigations As subject a result of their extensive into the matter, attorneys owners’ had concluded that in the possible instant body it prove case would be to condemning that the good did intend faith property to take the for a public (Cal. Const., I, use. 14; People true art. Chevalier, v. § 598].) They expected 52 Cal.2d 299 P.2d [340 to establish this fact, despite body’s conclusive nature condemning the to of the (Code necessity resolution Proc., (2)), Civ. subd. § proof by (1) that present there was neither a nor future need proposed for school to be located site; (2) that it impossible for the school to be financed or built within the highly next years; (3) seven that the unsuitable location proposed for purposes, of the site contrasting with its peculiar greater suitability and its pur- value for commercial poses, it manifest condemning body made that the had no to use property bona fide intention purpose for the asserted but rather intended hold it indefinitely until its appreciated permit private value would it be per- sold to great profit. sons words, purpose In other it was the of the owners to estab- support lish a foundation factual their contention that although acquired property may be for future educational
445 acqui- permit 19577), does not Code, (cf. needs Ed. § specula- purposes of condemnation property sition of may used thereafter raising funds which as means tion purposes. for school truly suitable purchase other interposed defense to evaluate not undertake We need (Cf. Anaheim answers. allegations amended Vieira, Cal.App.2d 169 High v. [51 Dist. Union Cal.Rptr. is hearing denied.) It sufficient Petition 94]. they presented substantial present purposes observe that important respects, the many In law and fact. issues of presented court in Port similar to that instant case is supra, Transp. Co., Luis Port San Harbor Dist. v. San Luis on the issue owners lost Cal.App.2d 689, 693, in which the services of was held that the public use, but, nevertheless properly considered devoted to this issue were counsel attorneys’ awarded. fees to be determining amount of the proposition that course, question the asserted We, do not operation in the courts certainly “It not debatable ’’ However, *10 is purpose. neither public high a school is for a guise under the takes land if a school board that debatable the true public but with constructing a school thereon parties profit, private for a selling it thereafter to intention of taking public use. a is not for a such Chevalier, supra, People 52 Cal.2d pointed As out in v. taking is seq., that it is after it is established et regarding presumption public use a that the conclusive for good applicable. The in Cheva- public necessity and page is no pains point 304: “There was at out lier for a then, takings in the instant case are question, that the allege fraud, faith, or not bad public use. Defendants did does not that the condemner discretion in sense abuse of actually property as it to use it.” resolved intend use respondents exactly upon which based This is the contention defense in the instant case! their relating is not in evidence issue the available Since us, upon which to evaluate no basis before have the record allegation appellant’s that grounded defense the taking purposes speculation for of land was scarcely But it is the construction of a school. rather than adjudi- respondents entitled to an question open they by this defense and if issues tendered of the cation There- they would have won the lawsuit. prevailed thereon opinion accepted of the one fore, if the court below even appellant’s expert respondents testified on who behalf probably prevailed trial, would not have in a it still would not researching follow services of counsel in the law and discovering compensable bearing upon the evidence those issues were non- they preparation because were “not incurred in for trial. public use, In addition to the issue of counsel for the re- spondent spent owners preparing time considerable scheduled trial on They of value. were successful having year valuation date set more than a after the insignificant date service of a summons, gain since it subject property was conceded that the was in an area located rapidly rising property addition, values. In to the extent pretrial causing their preparations produced evidence community other proceeding leaders interested in the to con- condemning body’s clude that the of acqui- estimated costs prove grossly sition would unrealistic, may their endeavors have contributed and proceeding, to the decision to abandon the merely advantage respondents, this not pre- to the or sumably advantage taxpayers of the school dis- trict. attorneys expenditures estimated their total time at 45 days,
and 47 respectively, without indication that this any “political” “lobbying” included or activities. The criti- ’ cism kept by directed to the time respondents records counsel appears they reasonably to be As explained, unwarranted. provided since their contingent contracts with clients fees, they had no reason to be concerned with such time exact required operat- records would have been ing if had been time-price as did appellant’s basis the office whom expert employed. addition, sole witness In at the rate of figure by appellant’s per hour, substantially expert, $50 set the award justified on time basis alone. Appellant’s expert testified that he charged would have respondents only $10,000 $7,500 or to handle the ease to the dismissal he date of because would not have “wasted his preparing litigate public time” the issue of use or in *11 seeking condemning body to demonstrate to the the error of respondents’ its If decision to condemn.1 counsel had fol- possible course, quite is lowed this it either that their clients noted, however, expert (Mr. appellant’s Hadley) 1It is to tie recognition procuring his that services in indicated rendered an abandon- compensable you under He And “Q. ment are take case tribution the statute. testified: did obtaining into the of took in consideration success an abandonment your arriving legal in at A. fee? into consideration the con- yes. abandonment, made in relation to the
447 proceeding would have that the their land or would have lost trial extended had established only after an been abandoned high project that the could figure at a so value of the land completion. reasonably have carried been primary purpose of beyond It serious is and thus to retain respondents action their to defeat the they January 17, fact, 1964, had offered to property. In on proceeding if for costs and disbursements all claims waive despite the fact had contrac- then abandoned were to be tually obligated attorneys $100,000 pay themselves contingency. regard a In this it upon such the occurrence of ’ striving attorneys respondents to estab- may noted that be abandoning working the action lish the wisdom say, is if a interests. That trier against their own financial the fair market fact had fixed value of .the figure by the earlier set inheritance tax lower even contingent fee appraiser, their contracts have entitled approximate $200,000. a fee in the amount of them to determination of is a is “The what reasonable fee that rests within the discretion of question of fact the trial after it [citations], has considered number of court including factors ‘ litigation, difficulty, nature of the [t]he required involved, handling, the skill in its the skill amount given, attention success or employed, the failure of the efforts, attorney’s attorney’s learning, including skill and experience particular age type -his of work (La Mesa-Spring Valley demanded.’ [Citation.]’’ Otsuka, supra, 57 316.) Cal.2d Dist. v. implicit appellant's contention, It is basic manifestly court trial course, that the abused its discretion in respondents’ evaluating the services counsel. This conten- appellant’s foundation entire tion is basic necessarily shown, because, constructed is we have case finding fact, ruling no objection no on to evi- is there other affirmative action dence, nor of the trial court indi- any improper it relied consideration in reach- cating that ing its decision. subject of it discretion, aptly abuse On this Chaplin, Cal.App.2d v. Berry P.2d stated [169 legal discretion is sense abused whenever : “In a 453] exceedsthe hounds discretion of its rea- exercise being before circumstances considered.’’ son, all of added.) (Italics case, fairly it cannot said that instant In the *12 448
award bounds “exceeds the of reason.” Inasmuch as the by substantially award made the trial court is less than the by valuations expert ($100,000 indicated the several witnesses $120,000) respondents, who testified on behalf of it cer- tainly supported cannot be by asserted that the award is not the evidence. The statement made court in Stuart v. Preston, 2 155, Cal.App.2d 441], 318 39 P.2d P.2d in [38 apposite connection problem equally with a similar is here: “There is showing no here that this verdict was result passion prejudice. of or supported the sworn It testi- mony reputable To hold members of the bar. it is (or excessive grossly consciences) so as our excessive to shock falsely have to find that all these witnesses swore and that judge perform duty. the trial refused his . . .” In addition, course, judge is the trial himself an “ expert in attorney matter . . “The value of fees. '. attorney’s judge services is must a matter with neces- which a sarily be familiar. When court is informed extent services, experience nature of such its own furnishes every necessary with element value.” [Cita- fix ” (Italics added.) (California Interstate Tel. Co. v. tions.]’ Prescott, Cal.Rptr. 472].) 228 Cal.App.2d 411 [39 aptly As in v. Westover stated State of California “ Co., supra, Cal.App.2d 447, appeal 450: is not a [T]he trial de novo of the fee basic issue reasonableness allowed. ought What is and to be constitutes reasonable fee confided in fact, first instance to the trier the court called allowance, to make the matters not and it whether appellate sitting trial review of court’s order finds itself agreement differing or from amount so inquire fixed. We can or to whether not the sum allowed is so that its constitutes pal- exorbitant allowance pable plain abuse of discretion.
The order is affirmed.
Roth, J.,P. concurred. Dissenting.
FLEMING, The question us is J. before on defendants, award to of eminent abandonment domain costs proceedings, of their disbursements reasonable attorneys’ preparing trial and during fees incurred trial.
From briefs and the records conclude: studying the justified $77,000 fees cannot 1. The for the award of strictly legal services. performance of great 2. The bulk of services for which the award was made political representation legal involved representation. and not legal acquisition at stake—that issue purported 3. The public purpose—involved for a high was not land for a political (policy) political argument advanced forums and presented in court. legal argument part in substantial its award of fees 4. The court based political services. *13 proper are not a basis for an award
5. such services Because 1255a, attorneys’ section the cause should of fees under court with instructions to assess fees remanded to the trial against legal only. services school district for the $77,000 in Fees Cannot 1. The Award Be Justified Strictly Legal Services the Performance activity activity in this case was minimal.1 Valuation Court legal proceeding as a the cause had was skeletal. Considered beyond preliminaries scarcely proceeded the before aban- kept any counsel for defendants had donment. Neither time spent case, his estimate of time on records to substantiate the any specific have data to nor did either counsel indicate what spent any particular aspect amount of time he brought daybook counsel, of one of the ease. The to court at plaintiff district, request school indicated no more than ’ days of five work on the case. a total Hadley’s my estimate of legal In view Mr. the value of all $7,500 $10,000 substantially services the ease cor- rect. Bulk Services Which 2. The Great the Award Was Representation Legal Repre- Political Not
Made Involved sentation strictly legal by paucity recognized services was consequently emphasized political counsel, who nature of happy and the results achieved for
their services their clients using political In of their services. the words serv- as a result 1 continuances, Other than record in the trial court shows following activity on behalf of these defendants: 1963—2-page 30 October answer filed early January January 1964—opposition plaintiff’s trial motion for an 7 pretrial 1964—first 1964—2-page 1964—argument conference August September amended answer filed on date of valuation II by on 14 1965 a notice of abandonment was filed Thereafter June plaintiff.
nn (cid:127)450 derogate way performed ices in no do I the services or belittle Perhaps
their merit. the use phrase, neutral such as policy services, would avoid the connotation attached to the phrase political lobbying. services and attached to the word ' Nevertheless, under whatever label we to use and choose how- described, appear ever political these services to have been overwhelming and to have constituted the of the services bulk performed by legal counsel in this matter. were not These representation services connected with the defendants length As described at counsel, court. their services con- advising sisted their proposal clients how to defeat the ' high school in persuade the immediate area and how new high school board not to property. build a school on their n advising In addition to their matters, clients on these themselves took an attorneys in publicizing active role views favorable- to their persuading persons clients’ interest -in adopt institutions area point of view. The campaign mechanics of the propose were—first to a division of existing high separate school parts (con- district into two solidating separate part each with the lower schools in the area), persuade division, next to approve the voters to persuade then to the voters to elect school board members sympathetic to the interests of defendants, and finally to persuade newly elected school board . members to abandon arguments condemnation. The basic attorneys used campaign in this high another the district *14 needed, was not and-even if one particular were needed the poorly location had been chosen. In this wholly endeavor counsel were successful, and the ' new school board February determined in 1965 to abandon - plans high for a Lautrup property. school on the Both attor neys length testified at about Baggot their services. Mr. testified : n “. . .we also checked with the Chamber of Commerce offi City cials La of Mirada and develop tried to what we knew there, opposition was and that is an taking to this for a . against site. We felt that City . taking was , they were, and we felt the Chamber of Commerce was against the taking, and were, and we felt that all'the help get . we could from City and Chamber of Commerce ' perhaps rub off on help the School Board get and property this site, abandoned as a school and we had a num connection, conferences that ber and did a we consider able study amount of in that connection, including some City Man Well, the . . School Board. . put report out us he informed men, and one of the Mirada was ager of La I can’t going in against there. the school City it down don’t think I have I name of the man. remember of Commerce. We the Chamber from met with here that we morning. went to lunch Then we Mm in the met with opposed to the very much He was some more. it discussed help he I don’t us all could. promised to school site though. name, . . . Ms remember following election, and then a unification Yes, there A. in—and understand, unification was voted that—which, as I uni- for the board members of the an election there was then fied district. change And unification, was there a Q. after the of schools? superintendent
A. Yes. board, is that true Q. a different school And there was A. Yes. . . . regarding public use, impor- points these “We raised of Commerce officials City officials Chamber tuned the get assist to anybody we could to school board else site, everything of, think and did could off this to back politically, save from con- legally both demnation. support examination in Q. your on direct You stated your $50,000, you worth services were contention is that property from comdemnation correct? saved yes. factors, of the main That is one A. activity your your Q. contention the sole and Is ? for the abandonment this ease . . . proximate cause obviously motivation because
“I think it was to follow the notice of abandonment. We District I do that. But think our efforts were the main reason couldn’t for the abandonment. ’’ support Baggot his fee Mr. declaration to In his asserted: objectives primary representing declarant’s “One Lautrup Margaret herein was to secure an abandon- Minnie spent proceeding. Much of the time in this ment declarant pursuance objec- devoted to the matter was in this tive. testified: Atkinson Mr. got case, finally into the “Now, said, I have when after Lautrup Norman negotiations between Mr. and *15 the down, I immediately began officebroke County Counsel’s to possibil- investigate relative to the the in the area conditions being keep by taken endeavoring property from ity of this answer, at that time we did When we filed the condemnation. first of all Alex facts, the I contacted Mr. Goo- not know Attorney Mirada, City of La and he gooian, who was the taking City upwas in arms about the of advised me that the Chap- to Mr. piece property, of and he advised me to talk this man Bone, City to talk Administrator, and with who was the Commerce, and talk of with the the officials the Chamber people community newspapers and other to see various the feeling regard what their was with to this. people I “And so did talk with a number of these and City very very op found posed much disturbed and taking piece property this for the reasons they first, felt: there was no need for because just completed was a or there school that was either was about completed general area; expected to be there was no growth substantial in the area as residences insofar were con n already up; cerned area had because the bee built and last—probably because this was last remaining one of developed substantially site which could be for a beneficial use and, finally, city; extremely of the because was an hazard right ous location for a school it was because two main boulevards, eventually which even then had become —particularly Imperial extremely dangerous had become urged traffic-wise, they everything me to do I could to see kept being if the could be from condemned and they make all the offered to and information that had available, way they assist whatever could. “Then, this, the course of a number of consultations people. one, were held One—I think I these remember spent particular, morning talking, where we Bag- Mr. got I then went lunch with them and then went fur- ther In the this, into matter. course of I obtained from the study—this Chamber Commerce where I first learned it,of the La Mirada from Chamber of Commerce—the study planning particular in future district district, this prepared by had by University been of Southern California four—one, two, three leading ... six administrators field there in the then education, there survey specific staff, study had made a problems very this district. And I study made extensive of been, report, and came to the same given conclusion that had City officialsand the Chamber of me Commerce *16 place for location of absolutely was an ridiculous that this northerly boundary of the the actual It this school. was going—or growth was a substan- all of district, place in the growth going to take was portion of tial the south that toward even further below middle and area, Dairy Valley, Artesia be district what would kept through as that had been dairies fact that because of the Dairy Valley, where forming City of years everybody knew that development, housing they restricted chang- that that changing. I, particularly, knew was that ing becoming taxes were the fact that because dairymen could not continue to extremely high that the so . operate dairies that location. . . they million dollars said had three worth “The Court: You ? of unsold bonds million dollars’ worth Yes, The Witness: excess of three percent capac bonds, of its and it was bonded to 75
of unsold going they school, they to here were to build a were ity, and to— . have . . going they school, they to “I found that if built were part of the haul children from the southern have to bus northerly up very district clear to the and even line their district then, probably capacity, it wouldn’t be used use they even, then, as of capacity, and I found that hauling said, doing So, to fill their other schools. as I some reviewing opinion that this was not a it, after I was of taking taking public use, my opinion, that in it was a they very piece which I think property, valuable of hoped—in my opinion, they hoped very get at a unusual bargain I the conclusion that if a price, and came to Ldoubted there, they use ever built would it to school would be area, land in other so that could—because trade for some tremendously piece prop- going to valuable this was erty. Now, things— in the course of . . . then, you spent 48 “Q. your estimate, hours on the Is it telephone ? is a I say I that that conservative estimate because A. would many people many, about this hadn’t
talked to because we up unifica- gotten after this and the into it. But election came very issue, district became a vital and we tion of this school proper elected that we that if a school board could be felt getting an without hav- have a chance of abandonment public spent many litigate use, I hours ing talking people many my client to a number of hours with advising thing election, in this him. as to the to do assist very
your Honor, participated actively in that. and we telephone Q. Was this on the ? great yes. portion telephone, A A. of was on the Q. just .. support this is an that; no records to have You estimate. No, my A. it"is best estimate. Q. topics declaration, applicable your your That is to all you ?
the times that have are estimates appearances. Well, yes, except on the . . . A. testified, worked know, “You and from what has been together things, things, did certain did certain a unit. He joint pro- joint ability to and we combined our talents thought result. duce what we excellent reputation Q. you standing have You same feel *17 Baggot ? field of as Mr. does comdemnation so, I I I think other assets in more so in A. No. don’t think but have . equally perhaps as and this valuable case that are knowledge particular ease, my property and such as of the this get there, my ability and and to contact conditions out get officials and to their assistance and from the information on, going particularly assist in stir- to know what and to was school ring up of the. district—unification this consolidation endeavoring and to a school district see that board was abandoning in favor this case. that would be elected classify your Q. being you efforts this case as Would attorney? lobbyist a rather than an more of attorney. strictly my as I No, advised client A. I acted political regard problems do with to as to what to involved. ... , through your it was and Q. However, you contend efforts abandoned, is that Baggot’s that the action efforts Mr. ' ? -correct . fair, being fully I our Well, frank and don’t think A. only this. efforts contributed to efforts were the I am community aroused over this situation. But entire this, know 'Stewart, I know I that the school— that, Mr. sure I know that the of Commerce me that. Chamber let correct up matter, given in this and that when Mr. City and had particularly fight- "in and I came and started Baggot I—when thing again, all thing, aroused the whole over ing this along possible made a came which this and vehicle then brought public’s attention, and it was unified and (cid:127)to be in the election of the new directors—not k"ey of the issues .one my and I had board, this ‘directors’, trustees n Lautrup, people these contact Norman example, Mr. client, for he worked then backed position, and out their and find people try see that community people in the with the us, guiding this and I was vote elected that would Superintendent of assisting I talked in this. opposed very much myself. Benton, He was Schools, Mr. taking this site. . . . l Mirada-Norwalk Schoo to in the Lá Q. you did talk Who ? District Schools, Superintendent of Benton, Mr. A. I talked to his discussing problem, getting entire times, at several Lautrup also learning position, and Mr. his cooperation and my meetings suggestion. him at with a number of voting Board Educa- Q. member Is Mr. Bentón tion ? ' voting Well, setup, sir, he not be would under A. district, certainly he would member, but the head of the as occur, say and his great deal to as to what have a presented Trustees, the Board of are recommendations given great weight.' . . . I know Superintendent of Reginald M. Benton is the Schools “This I City Norwalk-LaMirada School District that referred originally stating held that I had consultations with him to in n along telephone, is the man person he with this (cid:127) Lautrup and Mr. that I worked at Chamber Commerce great length question, on this unification on the political Now, personally action that we took in the matter. I him, up, when the unification talked to but when was came reviewing 197-page report, which has to, facts, referred was studied been USC editors to far sure that the as he could tell me over tele- *18 phone enrollment, that, first to the relative was true subsequently proven correct, because was be when the. it, just Board a chance vote on there was had abso- study and lutely location, no need for the school that got I Mr. showed it, it and the facts from Benton and showed . that convinced me. . . parties I had on all of “And obtained details that were running board, election to I the school and had the out, and that was discussed with Mr. Benton brochure I what place, his would be in the this unification took attitude event (cid:127) opinion, absolutely in his and he told me that there was no place school, this and need for that if the unification took that against going the construction he was to recommend do, although us what to school, and he said he could not advise very glad to a school board elected that he would be see but then—well, and I that recommendation, that follow his would something else. Q. you did then ? What do next Lautrup parties Mr. length Then I at discussed A. my and under running, he, my that were and at direction instructions, a number of these directors—not interviewed ‘ ’ directors, and, persons running, fact, but the interviewed Aegerter, actually deposition Mrs. whom had taken the we interviewed, before, and and I she should he discussed how position and what should be said to her to determine what her having be, would and also discussed him her interview thing husband, do, which he did the same occurred with regard MacTaggart persons to Mr. and several of the other running. were determining attitude, “And he after and I then con- along further, he, sulted and then with the assistance newspapers—I report Chamber Commerce, our position newspapers they publish so that could articles school, relative to the fact that there was no need for this Chapman me it was discussed with Mr. Bone him though Planning approved that even had Commission if condemnation, site—because there would have been a fixed they very opposed point, decision much they this, instigation would rezone it. And so at the Bone, Chapman City Administrator, Mr. with the local discussed it newspaper, Lamplighter, wrote it, people articles on and the of the stand of the running, on, as we worked material became the issue in this election, interesting—not ‘interesting’, whole turned out that it is part that we worked was successful the time, words, part first in other the unification of that your successful, Honor, here, which was testified to and the part work, we didn't going where which was what was to be part left after this unified, was not successful the first They go through time. had to again. it all over Lautrup And Mr. Benton worked with me and with Mr. accomplish trying finally this. Then when it was accom- plished, Aegerter changed position, Mrs. her was elected to MacTaggart the new board. Mr. was elected board, to the new just and he recommended what he told us he would recom- And the mend. school board then did—the new board *19 by did then elect to abandon or recommend it be abandoned board, and had the old school the old school board to—in great and a effect, that, followed there was deal of work done by talking very there, Hurley, me to Mr. who was active over Helms, very there, City Mr. Attorney, who was active over and the naturally, Hutchison, Mr. I even talked to although frankly moment, at the I don’t remember what about, was I can’t remember that. ...”
In his declaration Mr. stated: Atkinson the employed, “At time declarant he was was instructed legally that he was to all means take available endeavor action, secure an abandonment of the and it above-entitled expressly agreed orally understood and between declar- Lautrup primary objective ant and Norman that the first representing him in the matter was to endeavor to secure the As appear District’s abandonment the will case. from the further set declaration, great facts forth a spent deal time work done declarant this case securing objective devoted to of the abandonment of proceedings by the SchoolDistrict. In arguing to the Atkinson of their value services both Mr. Baggot and Mr. stressed the fact that had suc- in persuading ceeded newly elected school board in the newly created district to abandon the Mr. condemnation. Atkinson stated: parties “. . . the desire of the was to this property, save if possible, Now, from condemnation. very becomesa impor- thing, tant and our actions went—from that time on—went point great deal, and that is shown the extensive research, get example, that I study, did on this so that I could questioned the facts with then deposition, all then of the work did regard that I with City Council, Commerce, Chamber the newspapers, polit- thing ical District, Benton, the School Mr. who was the disputed— n head of it—and none this is and all this went toward the abandonment, just and this abandonment didn’t accidentally happen. I will there admit is some along—we fortunate circumstances which came deny don’t us, problem it—which assisted and that was—this of unifica- up, tion but came the whole battle—and this has not been disputed—one the main taking battles was of this necessity putting school site and the there, issue, that was the have testified to. That is the whole thing. up? Lautrup myself. who stirred that Mr. And Planning already by their City had Commission
Because the up approved site, it became such an issue given but people elected, and then the two that this board was of—not, say, ‘directions,’ under directions testified Miller, superintendent of the Excelsior School with Dr. *20 necessity thing, this that had testified as District I entirely with what themselves and were in accord reversed very beginning, Baggot arguing from the and had been Mr. justified by fact and thing that was whole was not this public use, very a vital taking in for and that was truth the very fought beginning and went issue, and we it from the along that. . . . political in the ‘Now, how much were our services worth political truly in one field, I mean it wasn’t shall we call it? up community advantage stirring a taking It was and sense. to impossible It very issue vital. is almost so that an became escape the you in But that dollars and cents. cannot measure our part my directing and in fact those on our actions that . thing this comeabout. . . client caused whole said the Mr. has “We worked on the unification. Stewart Certainly, was the unification unification a crucial factor. that, bearing this, and we both worked on a substantial only on unifi- particular. in We worked not Atkinson Mr. election, your Honor, was one but worked on cation, which There elections that followed the unification election. board here. There three unification were two districts involved were elections, another, one in and two in one district elections, Atkinson were followed board Mr. worked trying through his in area and those, contacts friends try Lautrup get through well, Mr. to work and elected were in favor of of this members who abandonment those schoolsite. Baggot Mr. stated: elections, on the unification worked on the “We worked everything particu- possible, elections and did and I board larly here, although I Mr. Atkinson’s have reference to efforts get participate thing did in a number of them to this aban- . . doned. . ‘lobbying’ you “You can call it or whatever want. I don’t you It in the ‘lobbying’ care what it. isn’t sense call through. trying pass any trying was But I was to arouse bill community within the officials do within that could this something taking about it the fact that not a for a was public all, was—although at a use that there there was ” presumption—there necessity no conclusive it.
459 Acquisition Legal Purported Issue at Stake—That 3. Purpose— a Public High a Was Not Argument Land Advanced Political (Policy) Political Involved Argument Legal Not Presented Court Forums argument against high a school on of counsel’s The thrust operation high Lautrup property of a not that the matter public purpose, a as a did not involve school of high time, not needed at its loca- policy school was high poorly perhaps a selected, and school tion was particular support To needed location. never be population statistics, future argument reference was made Clearly arguments these are growth area, in the and the like. policy-making body and policy properly addressed relating legal proceedings improperly to a court in addressed certainly courts It is not debatable to condemnation. operation high public purpose. of a school is for high located, should be whether the district Where high school, afford to build another whether there should can district, etc., six are matters committed to be five or policy-making jurisdic- have
bodies over which the courts no case from State v. West over tion. This differs California Cal.App.2d Co., 96], P.2d counsel [295 *21 public arguing purpose, for in that Westover reimbursed sanctuary of land for a wild condemnation life involved under relatively statutory authorization, at time a new public considerably opera- purpose more debatable than the public high has of a ever been. tion Its Fees in Part Court Based Award Substantial 4. The of Political on Services from the of the record, have seen extracts the lack of As we strictly legal for services caused counsel to substantiation place emphasis political representation in the great showing only paucity of may we infer from the case. Not gave weight the trial to these legal of services that the court that it but we have the statement of itself claims considered important such services an factor case: " Baggot, Mr. I am inter- results, In the line The Court: raising point here, that is in the that Mr. Stewart ested you record this ease feel consti- what is there the counsel for the defend- evidence that the services of tutes Atkinson, you, or were an effec- ants, yourself or both Mr. bringing abandonment? tive factor about your Baggot: Well, Honor— “Mr. ‘‘ important an The That is Court: factor. Baggot: very important That is a factor, obviously, “Mr. labyrinth (Italics gets us into the cause effect.
added.) Proper 5. Because Services Not Are Basis For Such Attorneys’ Award Fees 1255a, Under Section the Cause Be Remanded the Trial Should Court With Instructions to Against Legal Assess Fees the School District Services for Only vacating present In against award fees the school district, way in no right we limit counsel’s to collect for downgrade politi- their services or would we value policy-influencing performed cal and by lawyers. services sole issue here is whether under section 1255a the school dis- required Lautrups moneys trict is to reimburse spent for my for reading such services. Under of the statute reimburse- ’ attorneys ment for ing fees is limited prepar- to fees incurred in proceedings may for the trial of the condemnation political include fees for While the matter has not and policy-influencing services. directly passed upon by been Supreme Court, language Mesa-Spring in La Valley Otsuka, School Dist. v. Rptr. 479, Cal.2d 316, 318 Cal. [19 7], strongly implies 369 P.2d such a limitation: ‘‘ preparation The value of all services rendered trial complaint after the clearly was filed are recoverable. The question is whether the value of pur- such services for such prior pose, filing rendered complaint, of the is recover- able, reasonably if necessary in preparing expected for the trial . . . The fees recoverable must a reasonable incident suit, proximately directly resulting from the action course, “Of the defendant cannot recover fees of his attorney incurred in connection with proposed taking of his unless such fees were incurred in preparation for the defense of the action. It is those services rendered in preparation trial proposed action that are recover- It able. is for the trial court to determine what services were preparation rendered in trial and the reasonable value of (Italics such services.” added.) I would reverse. *22 petition A for a rehearing was February denied 26, 1969. Fleming, J., opinion was .of the petition should
granted. Appellant’s petition hearing Supreme April denied Court was 1969.