BILL ANALYSIS
AB 237
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB 237 (Papan)
As Amended August 28, 2001
Majority vote
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |76-0 |(May 10, 2001) |SENATE: |36-1 |(September 4, |
| | | | | |2001) |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: JUD.
SUMMARY : Seeks to facilitate resolution of eminent domain cases
through the authorization of alternative dispute resolution
(ADR) and revise procedures in eminent domain proceedings.
Specifically, this bill :
1)Requires the final offer of the plaintiff (public entity) and
final demand of the defendant (property owner) in eminent
domain proceedings relating to compensation to include all
elements of required compensation, including compensation for
the loss of goodwill, and to indicate whether or not interest
and costs are included.
2)Provides that the parties to such proceedings may by agreement
refer the dispute to resolution by mediation or binding or
non-binding arbitration, and provides that the arbitrator's
decision in a non-binding arbitration is final unless within
30 days after service of the arbitrator's decision a party
moves the court for a trial of the eminent domain proceeding.
3)Provides that, upon motion of a party, the court may postpone
the date of such trial for a period that appears adequate to
enable resolution of a dispute pursuant to alternative
resolution procedures provided that the court is satisfied
that certain conditions are met.
4)Changes the date of exchange of valuation data in eminent
domain proceedings to 90 days before trial from 60 days.
The Senate amendments :
1)Provide that if the judgment in the proceeding is not more
favorable to the moving party, the court shall order that
party to pay to the other parties specified costs and fees,
AB 237
Page 2
unless the court finds in writing and on motion that the
imposition of costs and fees would create such a substantial
economic hardship as not to be in the interest of justice.
2)Make other clarifying changes.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Requires that, at least 20 days prior to trial on issues
relating to compensation, the plaintiff serve on the defendant
a final offer of compensation.
2)Requires that just compensation in an eminent domain
proceeding be determined by a jury unless waived.
3)Permits the plaintiff to deposit the probable amount of
compensation, based on an appraisal, at any time before entry
of judgment and requires the plaintiff to prepare a written
statement of summary of the basis for the appraisal.
4)Requires parties to exchange valuation data 60 days prior to
commencement of trial on the issue of compensation.
AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY , this bill provided that if the
judgment in the proceeding is not more favorable to the moving
party, the moving party shall pay the costs and litigation
expenses of the parties in the eminent domain proceeding.
FISCAL EFFECT : None
COMMENTS : This bill, sponsored by the Law Revision Commission,
is intended to facilitate resolution of eminent domain cases
through the authorization of ADR and revise procedures in
eminent domain proceedings. In its Recommendation on the
measure, the Commission states:
In almost all condemnation cases, the primary issue is the
amount of compensation. Evidence is introduced in support
of each party's contention of the value of the property
taken and damages to the remainder. Valuation disputes may
arise from such matters as differing interpretations of
sales data and differing opinions of highest and best use,
probability of changes in zoning, probability of
dedication, feasibility of development, and legal
compensability of loss.
AB 237
Page 3
Existing law seeks to encourage settlement of eminent
domain valuation disputes by requiring the parties to make
their final offers and demands before the commencement of
trial. Attorney fees and other litigation expenses may be
awarded to the property owner if the final pretrial demand
of the property owner was reasonable and the final pretrial
offer of the condemnor was unreasonable.
Other settlement inducements include special provisions for
exchange of valuation data by the parties. As a general
rule, conventional discovery techniques have been of little
value in generating useful information concerning the key
points of disagreement between the parties. This is
because the critical evidence in eminent domain proceedings
is expert opinion testimony, and valuation experts who may
be called to testify at trial resist formulating an opinion
for that purpose until the time of trial. For this reason,
California has adopted special discovery rules for eminent
domain proceedings, which provide for an early exchange of
valuation data on demand of a party.
Analysis Prepared by : Saskia Kim / JUD. / (916) 319-2334
FN: 0002622