Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District v. Armstrong

SHOEMAKER, J.

Plaintiff Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (hereafter referred to as “the District”), brought this action in eminent domain to acquire public easements for flood control district purposes. Among the defendant landowners were William and Annie Ford, from whom the District sought to acquire certain rights in property designated as Pine Creek Parcel Number 1. This appeal is taken by the plaintiff District from the interlocutory judgment in condemnation awarding defendants Ford $17,830 as compensation for the taking.

In the course of the trial, which was had before the court sitting without a jury, both plaintiff and defendants Ford introduced expert testimony bearing on the value to be placed on the property taken and the highest and best use to which the defendants' property could be put. Considerable conflict appeared in the testimony as to the highest and best use for defendants’ property. There was also a wide disparity between the compensation awards recommended by the various experts. A plaintiff’s expert placed a total value of $2,050 on all the property taken, including both the easements and the portion taken in fee. A defendants’ witness, on the other hand, recommended an overall award of some $33,000.

At the conclusion of the trial, the trial judge informed both parties that he intended to take a view of the property and also intended to appoint an independent appraiser to assist the court in an advisory capacity. Neither party expressed any

[209]

objection to this procedure. Robert Foley was thereupon appointed by the court as an independent appraiser, and his report recommending a total compensation award of $17,830 was filed with the court on February 12, 1960. On February 17,1960, a memorandum of decision was filed by the trial court, wherein the trial court set forth a breakdown of its contemplated condemnation award, the figures being identical to those recommended in the Foley report.

Defendants then moved to reopen the cause after submission in order that the evidence of Mr. Foley could be received in open court and also in order that further evidence could be received on the issue of special benefits. Plaintiff opposed the granting of this motion, alleging that special benefits had not been considered an issue during the trial and had been injected into the case for the first time in Mr. Foley’s report. The trial court granted the reopening for the limited purpose of cross-examining the court-appointed appraiser and introducing certain correspondence which purportedly related to the issue of special benefits.