California Supreme Court Clarifies Respective Roles of Court and Jury During Compensation Trial in an Eminent Domain Action

In Metropolitan Water District of Southern California v. Campus Crusade for Christ, (2007) 41 Cal.4th 954, 161 P.3d 1175, the California Supreme Court held that the property owner has the burden to produce evidence to support a finding that rezoning is reasonably probable. Once that burden has been satisfied, neither party bears a particular burden of persuasion with respect to convincing the trier of fact that the reasonable probability exists or what effect such probability would have on the valuation of the property. The determination as to whether or not there is a reasonable probability of a use change is a question of fact for the jury.

T he Court further held that where the property owner produces evidence tending to show that some other aspect of the taking, such as the risk of a pipeline rupture, naturally tends to and actually does decrease the market value of the remaining property, it is for the jury to weigh its effect on the value of the property, as long as the effect is not speculative, conjectural, or remote.