In Ridgewater Associates LLC v. Dublin San Ramon Services District, published on May 11, 2010, the plaintiff purchased a warehouse at a discount because water seepage from nearby public works apparently damaged the warehouse. The new owner then sued the agency that maintained the public works, for inverse condemnation and nuisance. The trial court granted the agency summary judgment on both causes of action. The appellate court affirmed.
The court ruled that a purchaser who buys property after it has been damaged for a public purpose can sue for inverse condemnation only if the owner can prove damage to the property that took place after the purchase. Since the purchaser here had no proof of such damage, the trial court properly granted summary judgment on that cause of action.
The court also upheld the trial court's decision that Government Code section 830.6's design immunity applied to nuisance claims; and barred the plaintiff's nuisance claim here.
Can being rezoned to some fake environmental issue like tiger salamander count as prior damage to the property's value? I found somewhere that the govnernment doesn't have to pay the property owner a dime, and can leave them with the balance of their mortgage if it has salamnders, fairy shrimp, or any what they deem as endangered plants. Can the property owner sue for larceny?
Posted by: Rachele Ketchem | November 28, 2012 at 10:20 PM
In every property deal, there are certain privileges that are maintained by the customer. The privileges of a customer should be described by the property broker or a property lawyer before any agreements are finalized.
Posted by: energy efficient lighting | December 19, 2012 at 07:05 PM