Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Real Estate & Property Law Blogs -> inversecondemnation

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Real Estate & Property Law

: inversecondemnation

Latest Eminent Domain Ruling From The California Court of Appeal

By Robert Thomas (inversecondemnation.com)

ADVERTISEMENTS

I'm on the road so haven't had the opportunity to digest this one in more detail.
In an unpublished opinion in Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles v. Kramer Metals, No. B208726 (Apr. 23, 2010, the California Court of Appeal (Second District) held:
Kramer Metals, a California partnership, Stanley J. Kramer, as its general partner, and Stanley J. Kramer and Susan M. Kramer, husband and wife, as joint tenants, (collectively, Kramer) appeal from the judgment in condemnation following: (1) a court trial determining Kramer's entitlement to just compensation from the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles, California (CRA) for taking Kramer's property (Kramer Property or 1000 Property); (2) a jury trial resulting in an award of $4,830,000 as just compensation; and (3) a jury trial resulting in a verdict that Kramer "suffered no loss of goodwill as a result of the taking."
On appeal, Kramer contends that: (1) the trial court erred in failing to dismiss the condemnation action, because the Resolution of Necessity (RON) did not contain a determination that the public interest and necessity required the project, a jurisdictional defect; (2) the requisite owner participation process was a sham; (3) CRA violated the Ralph M. Brown Act (Gov. Code, § 54950, et seq.; Brown Act) in adopting the amended RON; (4) CRA's pre-determination to acquire the Kramer Property violated Kramer's due process right to notice and opportunity to be heard; (5) the amended RON lacked a renewed parcel-specific blight finding; (6) the court abused its discretion in excluding evidence of precondemnation damages and in admitting the testimony of CRA's goodwill expert; and (7) the judgment must be amended to include an award of interest on the probable compensation deposited. We affirm the judgment.
Slip op. at 2 (footnote omitted).

Full post as published by inversecondemnation on April 26, 2010 (boomark / email).