Appellant, a public utilities district, sought review of a judgment from the Superior Court of San Diego County (California), which, in a jury trial, awarded respondent property owner damages for breach of contract and inverse condemnation, as well as compensation for a direct taking in eminent domain. The trial court also awarded the property owner attorney fees and other litigation expenses under Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1036, 1250.410.
California Business Lawyer & Corporate Lawyer, Inc. offers counsel for CRC 3.1200
Overview
The property owner sued the district for breach of contract, specific performance, and inverse condemnation based on the district’s refusal to perform a written agreement to convey an access easement. The district filed a cross-complaint to quiet title and for declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging that a sanitary easement on the property owner’s land precluded development of the land within the sanitary easement area. While this litigation was pending, the district filed an eminent domain complaint against the property owner, condemning a parcel that included all or most of the sanitary easement area, as well as the property owner’s rights to the access easement. The trial court interpreted the access easement referenced in the parties’ agreement as being for subdivision use. The court found that the agreement was ambiguous and could be interpreted as being for personal use only. Thus, the trial court erred by failing to interpret the agreement in favor of the district as a public entity, as required by Civ. Code, § 1069. The trial court correctly ruled that it was premature to decide whether development might contaminate the sanitary easement area.
Outcome
The court reversed the judgment, remanded for retrial, and reversed the postjudgment award of litigation expenses for redetermination in light of the outcome of the retrial.
