People v. Ocean Shore Railroad, Inc.

California Court of Appeal Sep 27, 1937 No. Civ. 10428Published

Before: Ogden

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The trial court committed reversible error by failing to make an express finding on the issue of severance damages to the defendant's remaining adjacent property, as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 1248.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred by failing to make a specific finding on the issue of damages to the defendant's remaining adjacent property.
Whether a conclusion of law stating that the award constitutes full payment for all damages can be treated as an implied finding of fact.

Disposition. reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Appellant, having raised the issue of resulting damages by his pleadings and supported it by competent evidence, was therefore clearly entitled to a specific finding upon this material issue and a failure to find thereon must be held to be reversible error.”

“The right to findings is a substantial right, as inviolate, under the statute, as that of trial by jury under the constitution.”

OGDEN, J.,

pro tem.

This is an appeal from judgments of condemnation rendered by the court, sitting without a jury, in two actions consolidated for trial brought by respondent to acquire for highway purposes a strip of land running along the ocean coast in the county of San Mateo.

Appellant, as an individual and as trustee for others, was the owner of two of the parcels involved in the first of the actions brought and also owns the property adjacent thereto. on both sides. In this action respondent took immediate possession of the property and started construction of the highway. Thereafter, a slide occurred on certain of the adjacent lands of appellant and thereupon respondent commenced the other of the consolidated actions in which this slide area was sought to be acquired. By stipulation, the actions were tried only as to the parcels of land owned by appellant.

Appellant urges as error the action of the trial court in making and rendering separate findings, conclusions and judgments in each of the consolidated actions. Although, by authority of

Stanton

Superior Court,

202 Cal. 478 [261 Pac. 1001], and

Staub

Muller,

7 Cal. (2d) 221 [60 Pac. (2d) 283], the trial court might well have determined the two actions with but a single set of findings and conclusions, and a single judgment, its failure to do so resulted in no prejudice to appellant. For the purposes of this appeal, the two sets of findings, conclusions and judgments may be con

[659]

sidered in reality as but one.

(Stanton

Superior Court, supra.)

A meritorious objection to the trial court’s findings is, however, based upon their failure to include any determination of the issue of damage to the adjacent property of appellant by reason of the construction of the proposed improvement. In each ease, upon the issue of damage, the trial court found only as to the value of. the parcels of land taken, and awarded compensation in those sums. No express finding was made as to the presence or absence of damage to the remaining and adjacent property of appellant.

People v. Ocean Shore Railroad, Inc.

AI Brief

OGDEN, J.,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief