County of Butte v. Bach

• Decision Date: 27 September 1985
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: COUNTY OF BUTTE, Plaintiff, Appellant, Respondent, and Cross-Respondent, v. John BACH, Defendant, Cross-Defendant, Cross-Complainant, Appellant, Respondent, and Cross-Appellant; Butte County Board of Supervisors et al.; Cross-Defendants, Respondents, Appellants, and Cross-Respondents; Carl Morton et al.; Cross-Complainants, Cross-Defendants, Appellants, Respondents, and Cross-Respondents. Civ. 23325.

Page 613

218 Cal.Rptr. 613

172 Cal.App.3d 848

COUNTY OF BUTTE, Plaintiff, Appellant, Respondent, and Cross-Respondent, v. John BACH, Defendant, Cross-Defendant, Cross-Complainant, Appellant, Respondent, and Cross-Appellant Butte County Board of Supervisors et al.; Cross-Defendants, Respondents, Appellants, and Cross-Respondents Carl Morton et al.; Cross-Complainants, Cross-Defendants, Appellants, Respondents, and Cross-Respondents.

Civ. 23325.

Court of Appeal, Third District, California.

Sept. 27, 1985.

Review Denied Dec. 30, 1985.

Hefner, Stark & Marois, Sacramento, Robert S. Willett, Los Angeles, Judy R. Campos, Sacramento, Dewitt W. Clinton, County Counsel, Los Angeles, for plaintiff, appellant, respondent and cross-respondent.

John N. Bach, Chico, for defendant, cross-complainants, cross-defendants, appellants, cross-appellants and respondents.

Denis A. Eymil, County Counsel for cross-defendants, appellants, respondents, and cross-respondents.

Kopp & DiFranco, Quentin L. Kopp, Don B. Kates, Jr., and William F. Fitzgerald, San Francisco, for cross-defendant, appellant, respondent, and cross-respondent.

Moore, Crawford, Stefanki & Block, James Crawford, Kevin T. Cauley, Matheny, Poidmore & Sears, Michael A. Bishop, Sacramento, Price, Price, Brown & Halsey, Philip B. Price, Chico, for cross-complainants, cross-defendants, appellants, respondents and cross-respondents.

James B. Lindholm, Jr., County Counsel, San Luis Obispo, Ralph R. Kuchler, County Counsel, Monterey, and Paul T. Hanson, Deputy County Counsel, Los Angeles, as

amici curiae on behalf of plaintiff, appellant, respondent and cross-respondent.

BLEASE, Associate Justice.

These consolidated appeals arise out of an action concerning the disputed use of a house in a residential zone as a law office. The action commenced with a zoning violation complaint by the County of Butte seeking to enjoin John Bach, an attorney, from so using the house. Bach and his spouse, who own the property, cross-complained for damages alleging that the zoning ordinance and its enforcement were violations of their federal civil rights. The Bachs named as cross-defendants the Board of Supervisors of Butte County, Supervisor Hilda Wheeler, the office of the county counsel, and several neighbors of the disputed premises who were active in the controversy (hereafter the neighbors). The neighbors in turn cross-complained against the Bachs seeking to enjoin the disputed use as a violation of a convenant running with the land. After a three-week hybrid court and jury trial the jury returned a verdict in the amount of $650,962 on the Bachs' damages claim; the county was awarded a limited injunction prohibiting Bach from employing in his law practice persons who did not reside on the premises; and the neighbors were denied relief on their cross-complaint, but spared liability for damages by judgment notwithstanding the verdict. After judgment was entered the trial court awarded the neighbors their costs and attorney's fees and denied the Bachs' request for an attorney's fees award. The parties appeal from each adverse aspect of the judgment and the post judgment orders.

FACTS

This dispute concerns the use of the northwest corner lot at the T-intersection where Lorinda Lane terminates at Cohasset Road. Lorinda Lane is an east/west street developed in the early 1950s as a 41-unit subdivision for single-family residential use. At that time the surrounding area was rural and devoted to agricultural uses. Cohasset Road is a north/south street which connects the area of the dispute, an unincorporated area on the outskirts of the city of Chico, with that city. Cohasset Road has developed from two-lanes into a heavily trafficked four-lane arterial. Most of the property with frontage on Cohasset Road is now devoted to commercial or multi-family residential uses. Bach and his wife own the subject corner lot. They and their predecessors in interest have sought to devote it to more profitable uses than that of a single-family residence. A number of the homeowners on Lorinda Lane oppose any such use of the corner lot.

Prior to 1979, Lorinda Lane and Lindo Lane, the parallel adjacent street to the north, were zoned A-2. This classification permits a wide variety of uses including commercial activities such as law offices. In 1978 a controversy arose when a house on Lindo Lane began to be used as a day care facility. Some residents of Lindo Lane had a meeting at the home of Virginia Lowen on Lindo Lane to discuss their displeasure at this development. Wheeler (a former resident of Lindo Lane), was a candidate for the board of supervisors at the time. She attended the meeting. Wheeler said she would do all that she could to assist the residents to have the area rezoned to prevent encroachment of commercial uses. Someone [other than Wheeler] voiced objections to the day care center on the ground that it would bring "undesirable" persons into the neighborhood, since the neighbors thought the day care center was associated with the CETA program.

In 1963, James and Frieda Stratton purchased the property which is the subject of this action. In September 1979 they put the property on the market for sale. James Stratton testified that one of the cross-defendant neighbors, Alan Dennison, came to his house and urged him not to sell to blacks, Mexicans, Chinese, or people with children. On October 24, 1979, the Strattons made a contract to sell the property to a Mr. Weinroth. In mid-November some of the homeowners on Lorinda Lane On November 20, 1979, Bill Smith appeared before the board of supervisors and presented the petition. He noted that the area was presently the subject of a zoning study by the planning commission and requested that the board interim zone the area R-1 until the zoning study was completed. On the motion of Supervisor Wheeler the area was interim zoned R-1 for 120 days. Wheeler had not been active in connection with the matter prior to the presentation by Smith to the board. Under the Butte County zoning ordinance the only use of right in an R-1 zone is that of a single-family dwelling. After the interim zoning measure was adopted the Strattons' sale to Weinroth "fell apart."

learned of the impending sale and that Weinroth intended to use the property for a real estate sales office. Three of the cross-defendant neighbors, Myrna Smith, Bill Smith, and Cathy Morton, met with an attorney, Neil McCabe, who advised them to circulate a petition for signatures asking the board of supervisors to zone the area R-1. McCabe dictated the contents of the petition which was circulated by Bill Smith and three of the other cross-defendant neighbors.

In January 1980, the Strattons listed the property with a real estate agency and on January 14 contracted to sell the property to Ann Willis and Sandra Hazel. On March 11, 1980, the zoning matter came before the board for consideration of extending the interim zoning measure. The owners of the corner lots with frontage on Cohasset Road, including the Strattons, appeared at the board meeting and requested that the zoning designation on the corner lots be R-4, a zone that permits businesses and professional offices. The board granted this request continuing the R-1 zoning for all of the other lots. Supervisor Wheeler abstained from the vote. The neighbors who had precipitated the interim zoning to prevent commercial use of the Strattons' property were not present at the board hearing. Wheeler had told them that continuation of the R-1 zoning would be routine and that they need not attend.

Wheeler arranged for use of the Chico Municipal Courtroom for a meeting on March 27, 1980, with the disgruntled homeowners from the neighborhood. At her request a member of the county counsel staff and a member of the planning commission staff attended. Approximately 75 people attended the meeting. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss prospects for reversing the decision to zone the corner lots R-4. After the meeting various residents in the neighborhood wrote letters addressed to the board of supervisors requesting that the decision to interim zone the lots R-4 be modified to interim R-1 zoning. At the board meeting on April 8, 1980, Wheeler submitted a packet of the letters to the board. She had telephoned the Strattons and another owner of one of the corner lots to advise them that the topic would be raised at the board meeting. Both Willis and the Strattons spoke at the meeting and argued that the interim zoning should not be changed. The county counsel advised the board that they had the power to modify the interim zoning ordinance if they wished to do so. The board voted to change the designation of the corner lots from R-4 to the interim R-1 designation.

On August 19, 1980, when the pending zoning study was completed, on the recommendation of the planning commission, the board enacted a regular zoning ordinance zoning the subject property R-1. On August 20, 1980, Hazel and Willis made a contract to sell the property to John Bach. Bach was informed that the zoning of the property was R-1 from the outset of negotiations. Bach began using the premises as a law office on October 1, 1980.

Under the county zoning ordinance it is permissible to use a single-family dwelling in an R-1 zone for professional offices. However, the ordinance says employment in the enterprise must be limited to members of the family residing on the premises. Myrna Smith, a resident on Lorinda Lane, testified that on many occasions after Bach moved in she rang the door bell at the subject property at night when she walked John Bach testified that when he is in a trial that lasts a week or longer or if he has briefs to get out he stays overnight at the subject property. His wife understands that this is a consequence of his devotion to the practice of law. His wife and children have used the house for meetings and have used the office equipment. The children...