PEOPLE EX REL. DEPT. OF TRANSP. v. Tanczos

California Court of Appeal Feb 26, 1996 No. G014800Published

Before: Sonenshine

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The trial court committed reversible error by excluding evidence of approved construction plans offered to demonstrate the feasibility of a property's highest and best use after the State placed that feasibility at issue during trial.

Issues

Whether construction plans are admissible in a condemnation proceeding to show the feasibility of a property's potential use.
Whether the exclusion of evidence regarding the feasibility of a property's use resulted in a miscarriage of justice requiring reversal.

Disposition. reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Conversely, they are admissible when offered merely as an illustration of one of the uses to which the property is adapted and the evidence is expressly limited by the court to such object.”

“The court erred in denying the Tanczoses' repeated requests to introduce their approved plans and this error requires a reversal of the judgment because it resulted in a miscarriage of justice.”

42 Cal.App.4th 1215 (1996) 50 Cal. Rptr.2d 70 THE PEOPLE ex rel. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Plaintiff and Respondent,

OSWALD TANCZOS et al., Defendants and Appellants.

Docket No. G014800. Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, Division Three.

February 26, 1996. [1216] COUNSEL

Barry A. Ross for Defendants and Appellants.

[1217] William M. McMillan, Anthony J. Ruffolo, Robert W. Vidor, Larry R. Danielson, Linda C. Harrel, Gerald A. Costello and Faith I. Mitchell for Plaintiff and Respondent.

OPINION

SONENSHINE, J.

Oswald and Laura Tanczos appeal from a condemnation judgment awarding them $320,000 for property taken by the State of California Department of Transportation (State). They maintain the award would have been significantly greater but for the court's exclusion of their construction plans, offered as evidence of one of the feasible uses of the property.

In the 1950's, the Tanczoses built a residence on an oversized lot in Tustin. Eventually they obtained a city building department's approval of construction plans for two or three rental units on the rear of the property. In 1989, before construction commenced, the State initiated a condemnation action relating to freeway expansion.

Unable to agree on the property's fair market value, the parties proceeded to trial. The State made an in limine motion to prohibit the Tanczoses from introducing the approved construction plans. It argued the jury might assume the rental units would be built and impermissibly increase the value of the land on that basis. The Tanczoses maintained the plans were necessary to prove the feasibility of the project. Without this evidence, the Tanczoses said, the State would argue construction of multiple units was "speculative." The court granted the motion, reassuring the Tanczoses the State "surely" would not make such an argument because if it did, the Tanczoses would be allowed to show the jury the plans. The court explained, "[The State] is not going to argue something that I am not going to let you bring in."

PEOPLE EX REL. DEPT. OF TRANSP. v. Tanczos

AI Brief

OPINION

SONENSHINE, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

NOTES

AI Brief