« UC Davis Settles Gender Bias Lawsuit | Home | Resources for Greenhouse Gas Reduction Measures and Plans »


Month-to-Month Tenant Entitled to Claim Loss of Business Goodwill

Although there is no constitutional right to compensation for business goodwill (benefits that accrue to a business as a result of of its location, reputation, skill and quality of its products and/or employees) in eminent domain proceedings, under California Code of Civil Procedure section 1263.510, the owner of a business conducted on property taken by eminent domain may be compensated for loss of goodwill under certain conditions. 

The Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, has just published a decision in Los Angeles Unified School District v. Pulgarin (filed 6/23/09) holding that there is no requirement in the plain language of the statute that the owner of a business seeking goodwill prove that he or she is the owner of, or has a written lease on, the property being taken:  "What is required is that '[t]he owner of a business conducted on the property taken' prove that the loss is caused by the taking of the property."  "A business which is required to move because of the taking of the property on which it operates has suffered a loss from the taking.  This is true whether the tenancy is for a fixed term, or is a periodic tenancy as in this case. 

If not challenged, the Pulgarin decision appears to be inconsistent with another Court of Appeal decision in San Diego Metropolitan Trnsit Dev. Brd. v. Handlery Hotel, Inc. (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 517, which held that a business owner has "no enforceable property interest" in the absence of a lease.  It may be that the California Supreme Court will need to clarify whether and to what extent a business owner must have a vested, legally compensable property interest in the property being acquired by a public entity, to be entitled to claim loss of goodwill.  In the interim, the value of the loss of business goodwill is still affected by the probable remaining term of a tenancy; evidence of no lease or a month-to-month tenancy are still probative elements for the determination of the amount of compensation for loss of goodwill.


Search this site:

Sponsored by

Subscribe to this blog by email
(enter email address in box below)

Public Law: Municipal Lawyer

Public Law: Municipal Lawyer

Subscribe in NewsGator Online

Public Law: Municipal Lawyer

Public Law: Municipal Lawyer

Public Law: Municipal Lawyer

Public Law: Municipal Lawyer

TOPICS

DISCLAIMER

  • This blawg is published by the attorneys and client relations team of Meyers Nave. It does not necessarily represent the views of our law firm or our clients, and is not sponsored or endorsed by our clients. The purpose of this blawg is to assist in dissemination of information about public agency laws and trends. No representation is made about the accuracy of the information. The information contained in this blawg is provided only as general information for education purposes, and blawg topics may or may not be updated subsequent to their initial posting.

    By visiting this blawg site you understand that this information is not provided in the course of an attorney-client relationship and is not intended to constitute legal advice. This blawg should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed attorney in your state. This blawg site is not intended to solicit clients and Meyers Nave does not wish to represent anyone desiring representation based upon viewing this blawg in a state where this blawg site does not comply with all laws and ethical rules of that state.