Wedding v. People ex rel. Dept. of Transportation
Decision Date | 24 January 1979 |
Citation | 88 Cal.App.3d 719,152 Cal.Rptr. 181 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | Waymond WEDDING, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. The PEOPLE of the State of California, acting By and Through the Department of Transportation, Defendant and Respondent. Civ. 52693. |
Oliver, Stoever & Laskin, a Professional Corporation, Richard Laskin and Ronald J. Einboden, Los Angeles, for appellant.
Harry S. Fenton, Chief Counsel, Sacramento, Joseph A. Montoya, Robert L. Meyer, Hugh R. Williams and Robert V. Cohune, Los Angeles, for respondent.
This appeal is from an adverse judgment in an inverse condemnation action.
We adopt the "Factual Statement" as set forth in appellant's brief:
The date of taking was the prime issue at trial and the finding was, in effect, that the damage to Lot 11 was complete on April 20, 1970. Appellant did not file his claim until either May 12 or May 18, 1971. By its conclusion of law, the court said: "(Appellant) failed to file a claim with the Board of Control within one year of accrual as required by Government Code Sections 911.2 and 901, 905.2, and 945.4"
Appellant argues that a 1976 amendment to Government Code section 905.2 and the addition of section 905.1 negates the requirement that a claim be filed for the damaging or taking of property and that the amendment is applicable to a case such as this, which is tried on or after January 1, 1977. 1 Appellant also argues that in the event a claim is required, one was timely filed by him. 2
In support of these arguments, appellant cites City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (Northrop ) (1977) 73 Cal.App.3d 509, 142 Cal.Rptr. 292. The state argues not only that Northrop is bad law but that it is distinguishable. In that case there had been no determination of the date of accrual of the action, i. e., determining whether a claim had been filed within one year of the action's accrual. The court held that the amendment to the Government Code abolished the need for filing a claim and therefore no statute of limitations had run.
In the instant case, the trial had not been held before the effective date of the amendments. If Northrop is correct (it was decided three months after the court decided this case), then there may have existed, at time of trial, no need to establish a claim and we must reverse.
A chronological statement of pertinent events at this point aids analysis:
Construction of sidewalk January 29, 1970 culvert across frontage of Lot continuously through 11 March 25, 1970 Respondent's field engineer March 26, 1970 personally advised Appellant Lot 11 would have no direct street access City Engineer's staff April 1, 1970 advised Appellant that access to Lot 11 not be provided Appellant declined to Early April, 1970 provide access across his adjoining Lot 10 Final concrete work on April 6 and 7, 1970 sidewalk culvert City withdraws relocation April 13, 1970 permit Work completed insofar as April 20, 1970 it affected Lot 11
As of this time, April 20, 1970, sections 911.2, 901, 905.2 and 945.4, of the Government Code required that a claim be filed within one year of the taking. Appellant filed his claim May 12, 1971, more than one year after knowledge of the taking was mandated (at the latest April 20, 1970). Under existing law (pre-1976) plaintiff had no right of recovery when he filed his claim. This was the decision of the trial court on June 22, 1977.
On January 1, 1977, section 905.1 of the Government Code became effective: It provides:
"No claim is required to be filed to maintain an action against a public entity for taking of, or damage to, private property pursuant to Section 19 of Article I of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Nelson v. Flintkote Co.
...also City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (1977) 73 Cal.App.3d 509, 512-514, 142 Cal.Rptr. 292; Wedding v. People ex rel. Dept. of Transportation (1979) 88 Cal.App.3d 719, 152 Cal.Rptr. 181.) There is no automatic magical extinguishment of a cause of action by the mere passage of time. A s......
-
People ex rel. Dept. Pub. Wks. v. Peninsula Enterprises, Inc.
...of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (1977) 73 Cal.App.3d 509, 513-514, 142 Cal.Rptr. 292; see also Wedding v. People ex rel. Dept. of Transportation (1979) 88 Cal.App.3d 719, 152 Cal.Rptr. 181.)14 Actually, it appears from the record that the impasse referred to by condemner occurred on July 2......
-
Gallo v. Superior Court
...cases are City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (1977) 73 Cal.App.3d 509, 142 Cal.Rptr. 292, and Wedding v. People ex rel. Dept. of Transportation (1979) 88 Cal.App.3d 719, 152 Cal.Rptr. 181, both retroactively applying Government Code section 905.1 which eliminated the claim-filing require......
-
Foss v. Anthony Industries
...228, 232-233, 174 P.2d 441; Johnston v. Sanchez, 121 Cal.App.3d 368, 375, 175 Cal.Rptr. 361; Wedding v. People ex rel. Dept. of Transportation, 88 Cal.App.3d 719, 724, 152 Cal.Rptr. 181; Bartman v. Estate of Bartman, 83 Cal.App.3d 780, 788, 148 Cal.Rptr. 207; Governing Board. v. Commission ......