Sacramento & San Joaquin Drainage Disrict v. Goehring

13 Cal. App. 3d 58, 91 Cal. Rptr. 375, 1970 Cal. App. LEXIS 1218
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal
DecidedNovember 24, 1970
DocketCiv. 12183
StatusPublished
Cited by45 cases

This text of 13 Cal. App. 3d 58 (Sacramento & San Joaquin Drainage Disrict v. Goehring) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Sacramento & San Joaquin Drainage Disrict v. Goehring, 13 Cal. App. 3d 58, 91 Cal. Rptr. 375, 1970 Cal. App. LEXIS 1218 (Cal. Ct. App. 1970).

Opinion

Opinion

REGAN, J.

The defendants are owners of a 140-acre parcel of land in San Joaquin County. Plaintiff district sought to condemn interests in three parcels of this land for a flood control project on Bear Creek. No part of the newly constructed flood control channel is upon defendants’ land. The district condemned (among other parcels of land) parcels 3097 and 3106B for a temporary easement as an access road for project construction, and an interest in parcel 3106C for a temporary easement (this parcel is in issue as it affects possible severance damages). 1

The jury rendered a verdict which included $10 for the fair market value of the interest taken in parcel 3106A, $900 in connection with the interest taken in parcel 3097, and $2,250 for severance damages. The district appeals from that portion of the judgment based upon the determination that severance damages were $2,250, and from the award of $900. It contends;

*61 1. The property owner’s opinion on severance damages was based in significant part on improper matter. This opinion is the only evidence in the record in support of the verdict of $2,250 severance damages; thus it was prejudicial error for the trial court to refuse to exclude his opinion.

2. The jury was erroneously instructed to award compensation for cost of restoring a temporary access road to its original condition ($900) where landowners conceded that market value of the property had not been affected by condemner’s use of the roadway during construction.

Facts

The defendants Phillip and Christina Goehring are the owners in fee ¡simple of a 140-acre parcel of land located in San Joaquin County. This land contains vineyards and walnut orchards. Bear Creek is located northerly of this 140 acres. The flood control project on Bear Creek, for which the district sought to condemn interests in parcels 3097, 3106A, 3106B and 3106C, was constructed in 1964 and 1965. No part of the newly constructed flood control channel went through the 140 acres owned by defendants. Project work included the deepening, widening, and realigning of Bear Creek. Levees three to four feet high were constructed on both sides of the new channel.

Parcels 3097 and 3106B were used by the construction contractor as an access road. Parcel 3097 comprises the west 20 feet of the 140-acre parcel starting at the south from Kettleman Road and extending north toward Bear Creek for about three-quarters of a mile to the end of defendants’ property line. Parcel 3106B is also 20 feet wide and is a northerly extension of the construction access road from parcel 3097. This parcel constitutes a portion of the strip of land described immediately below.

A strip of land 20 feet wide extends straight north 750 feet from the northwest corner of the 140-acre parcel to the former location of Bear Creek. An easement in the strip of land is appurtenant to the 140-acre parcel for road purposes, for draining water into Bear Creek, and for conveying water from Bear Creek. This land covered by the appurtenant easement is designated the “P. J. & Christina Goehring (Permanent Easement).”

Parcel 3106C is that portion of the former channel of Bear Creek located to the north of the new channel. The former Bear Creek channel within parcel 3106C was backfilled with dirt.

Parcels 3106A and 3109A contain the realigned Bear Creek channel and are located north and west of defendants’ 140-acre parcel.

Thus, the south boundary of parcel 3106C is at the north boundary of the *62 permanent 20-foot easement of defendants P. J. Goehring and Christina Goehring that extends from their 140 acres to the former Bear Creek channel; the west end of parcel 3106A, the district’s permanent flood control easement parcel, overlaps a central portion of defendants’ permanent 20-foot easement; and parcel 3106B, one of the district’s temporary access, road parcels, is directly superimposed over and is coextensive with the southerly portion of defendants’ permanent 20-foot easement.

In the instant case, the district condemned (among other small portions of property) parcel 3097 and the northerly extension designated parcel 3106B for a temporary easement as an access road. The temporary take in parcel 3097 involved an interest in fee. The interest in parcel 3106B involved, in effect, a temporary easement superimposed on another easement belonging to defendants. The interest in parcel 3106C was condemned for a temporary easement, but this parcel is only in issue as it affects possible severance damages.

This case involves two issues, namely, severance damage, if any, to the 140-acre parcel and the damages, if any, to parcel 3097 used (along with parcel 3106B) as a temporary construction access road.- Accordingly, we treat the testimony separately.

The district’s appraiser testified that the construction of the flood control project had had no effect on the market value of defendants’ remaining property and thus there was a zero severance value. He pointed out that there was no need for a drain for such would constitute draining uphill, and that there was no problem in obtaining water from Bear Creek since’ the channel was now closer to defendants’ property.

P. J. Goehring, one of the defendant property owners, testified on direct examination that his 140-acre parcel had depreciated $14,000 in value because of the project. After cross-examination by the district,' and pursuant to the district’s motion, the trial court excluded the property owner’s opinion on value on the basis that his opinion was based in major part on improper matter. Here, defendant testified that he made his valuation based on the loss of his “right” to move his equipment over Bear Creek into property owned by Reuben Goehring et ux, and Reuben Goehring et al. The court found that their alleged “right” was not a legally enforceable right and accordingly ordered the testimony stricken.

On redirect examination, the defendant again testified that his severance damages amounted to $14,000. On recross-examination, defendant again stated that this decrease in value was due to the fact that he couldn’t go across the creek, i.e., his “right of way” through the creek was cut off. The trial court apparently felt the opinion was still based on improper matter, *63 but this time it denied the district’s motion to strike. The trial court made it clear, however, that his “right of way” was not a legally enforceable right and that the jury could not take this “loss” into consideration in ascertaining damages. Nevertheless, the trial court was of the impression that defendant was the property owner and could give his opinion; if his reasons weren’t sound, then the jury could disregard them.

The property owners’ easement (designated the “P. J. & Christina Goehring (Permanent Easement)”) includes rights appurtenant to the 140 acres to pump water from and drain water into Bear Creek. At the time of trial no pumping or drainage facilities were located in the easement strip. The defendant property owner, however, testified that he intended to install such facilities.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

People v. Garcia CA3
California Court of Appeal, 2021
Russell v. Franklin County
306 Neb. 546 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 2020)
ENA North Beach, Inc. v. 524 Union Street
California Court of Appeal, 2019
Quidel Corporation v. Super. Ct.
California Court of Appeal, 2019
Property Reserve, Inc. v. Superior Court of San Joaquin County
375 P.3d 887 (California Supreme Court, 2016)
Rupert v. City of Rapid City
2013 S.D. 13 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 2013)
Mammoth Lakes Land Acquisition, LLC v. Town of Mammoth Lakes
191 Cal. App. 4th 435 (California Court of Appeal, 2010)
City of Fremont v. Fisher
73 Cal. Rptr. 3d 54 (California Court of Appeal, 2008)
Fowler Irrevocable Trust 1992-1 v. City of Boulder
17 P.3d 797 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 2001)
Sanitary & Improvement District No. 384 v. Bruhns Packing Co.
609 N.W.2d 679 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 2000)
Contra Costa Water District v. Bar-C Properties
5 Cal. App. 4th 652 (California Court of Appeal, 1992)
Pima County v. Palos Companies Unlimited
682 P.2d 1148 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 1984)
County of Madera v. Forrester
115 Cal. App. 3d 57 (California Court of Appeal, 1981)
County of Monterey v. W. W. Leasing Unlimited
109 Cal. App. 3d 636 (California Court of Appeal, 1980)
State v. Canola
374 A.2d 20 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1977)
City of Los Angeles v. Ricards
515 P.2d 585 (California Supreme Court, 1973)
County of Los Angeles v. Kling
22 Cal. App. 3d 916 (California Court of Appeal, 1972)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
13 Cal. App. 3d 58, 91 Cal. Rptr. 375, 1970 Cal. App. LEXIS 1218, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sacramento-san-joaquin-drainage-disrict-v-goehring-calctapp-1970.