Real Estate & Property Law

Cal Ct App: You Knew The Property Was Damaged When You Bought It

By Robert Thomas (inversecondemnation.com)

In a partially-published* opinion in Ridgewater Associates, LLC v. Dublin San Ramon Services District, No. A124661 (Apr. 11, 2010), the California Court of Appeals (First District) held that a property owner did not muster sufficient proof to support its claim for inverse condemnation against a neighboring sewage treatment facility. Ridgewater claimed that water from the facility intruded on its property.

The appeals court first rejected the trial court's conclusion that Ridgewater lacked standing because it was seeking relief for damages that occurred prior to its purchase of the property. The court held that by asserting it has been forced to pump intruding water off of its land, Ridgewater was asserting a claim for damages occurring during its ownership, and not for damages incurred before. Slip op. at 6 ("Ridgewater claims that rising water in the loading dock must be pumped to and over the paved surfaces on Ridgewater's property, erodes the pavement and requires additional maintenance and repairs.").

Even though Ridgewater had standing, the appeals court concluded that it did not prove it was damaged by the water intrusion. "Ridgewater was aware when it purchased the property that it was affected by '[c]ertain water table and water intrusion conditions' and the price it paid was reduced to take those conditions into account." Slip op. at 6. Someone who purchases land knowing it is subject to such conditions "cannot claim to be the victim of a governmental taking." Slip op. at 7. The court published this portion of the opinion.

In the unpublished portion, the court rejected Ridgewater's nuisance claim. The government is immune from liability for "injuries caused by the plan, design or construction of a public improvement that is built in conformance with the plan or design and is reasonably approved by a public body." Slip op. at 7 (citing Cal. Gov't Code § 830.6). The court concluded "[t]here is no reason to conclude the plans for the [sewage facilities] were not approved by the District's governing body and constructed in accordance with that approval." Slip op. at 10.

--------------------------------
*For those of you not aware of the California courts' unusual publication practices, find out more here.

Full post as published by inversecondemnation on May 11, 2010 (boomark / email).