 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Wong v. 396 Investment Co.5/17/2005
assertion is correct, i.e., that the Santiago Land Co. did at one time own both the reservoir site and the portion of Tract 10439 at issue in this litigation.
Although it would appear that 396 impliedly concedes the foregoing point, it does not agree that the Santiago Land Co. owned the portion of Tract 10439 in question at the time it conveyed the reservoir site to Anaheim. To the contrary, 396 asserts that it conveyed the portion of the Tract 10439 property at issue to Caltrans before it conveyed the reservoir site to Anaheim. The documents 396 cites do not bear out this assertion, however. It is apparent that the Santiago Land Co., and its predecessors in interest Louis and Margaret Nohl, were negotiating with both Anaheim and Caltrans simultaneously. Indeed, the deed to Caltrans was delivered to Caltrans in September 1960, months before the Anaheim deed recorded in November 1960. However, the record shows that Caltrans had neither completed its approval process nor accepted the Tract 10439 property before December 1960. The deed in favor of Caltrans recorded on December 23, 1960, and the certificate of acceptance attached thereto was dated December 13, 1960.
In short, Anaheim acquired the reservoir site before the Santiago Land Co. completed its transfer of the adjoining property to Caltrans. Thus, as Anaheim asserts, the Santiago Land Co. continued to own the adjoining property as of the date Anaheim acquired the reservoir site. Consequently, Anaheim has established its first point with respect to its estoppel by deed argument and we will proceed to address the next two points.
(3) Contemplated Reservoir Development and Foreseeability of Seepage
Anaheim cites several documents showing that the seller of the reservoir site was well aware that Anaheim intended to construct a reservoir on the property. Therefore, Anaheim has established its second point.
As to its third point, however, it is another question altogether whether the future seepage from the reservoir was reasonably foreseeable. The trial court, in its statement of decision, found that the 34 million gallon per year seepage was not reasonably foreseeable and that Anaheim's proffered estoppel by deed defense was therefore unavailing.
Generally speaking, when a property owner sells property to a public entity for a public project, he or she is not estopped to claim subsequent damages that "were not reasonably foreseeable at the time of public acquisition." (Reinking v. County of Orange (1970) 9 Cal.App.3d 1024, 1030; see also Ellena v. State of California (1977) 69 Cal.App.3d 245, 254.) In this case, we agree with the trial court that the leakage of 34 million gallons of water per year, for a period of well over ten years, was not reasonably foreseeable.
Anaheim disagrees. It contends that the Santiago Land Co. was fully informed that Anaheim intended to construct a reservoir on the property and that expert testimony showed "that the 65-gpm seepage was reasonably contemplated . . . ." However, while the Santiago Land Co. and its predecessors in interest were well aware that Anaheim intended to use the property for reservoir purposes, there is no indication whatsoever as to the awareness of either the Santiago Land Co. or its predecessors in interest as to any anticipated leakage. Furthermore, the cases Anaheim cites do not convince us that the extent of the leakage in this case should be deemed to have been reasonably foreseeable to the Santiago Land Co. at the time it conveyed the reservoir site to Anaheim.
The case of Ellena v. State of California, supra, 69 Cal.App.3d 245 is readily distinguishable. In Ellena, the state commenced eminent domain pr
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|