Wasserman's Appellate Summaries
June 13, 2000
By Lawrence Wasserman, Esq.
Netlaw Libraries welcomes attorney Lawrence Wasserman as a new website contributor. We are pleased to announce that his guest column, which synopsizes the recent decisions from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the California Supreme Court, the six California appellate districts, as well as some of the recent and interesting decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court, will be appearing as a regular feature for members and guests visiting the Netlaw Libraries website. We hope that you will find it to be a good way to start your legal research day and welcome your comments and criticisms regarding the column.
People v. Smith
Case No. A087299
California Court of Appeal, First District, Division Five
CRIMINAL-REQUIRED NOTICE THAT REIMBURSEMENT OF ATTORNEY SERVICES FURNISHED DEFENDANT MAY BE ORDERED-HARMLESS ERROR IN NOTIFICATION-REIMBURSEMENT FROM PROPERTY SEIZED FROM DEFENDANT
Smith was arrested in 1990 and convicted in 1991. In 1994 his conviction was reversed on appeal, and in January 1996, following a retrial, he was again convicted. At the time of his 1990 arrest $49,542 was seized from him. The money was the subject of an asset forfeiture proceeding, which the district attorney apparently dismissed on December 31, 1998. In December 1998 Smith moved for release of the funds seized from him. The County filed the subject motion for reimbursement of attorney fees and costs incurred on appellant's behalf since 1990. The court found that Smith received ample notice that he might have to reimburse the County for legal expenses and granted the motion for reimbursement from the seized money.
HELD: The Penal Code establishes the statutory procedure for determining a criminal defendant's ability to reimburse the county for the services of court-appointed counsel. A court may order a defendant who has the ability to pay to reimburse the county for all or a portion of the costs of his legal representation. The statute also states that before furnishing of counsel, and after a hearing, the court may determine that the defendant has the present ability to pay for the services rendered. Smith's1994 release agreement and the statements of the court at the 1996 sentencing hearing were sufficient to alert Smith that the concept of reimbursement for attorney fees and costs could apply to him. This alert was not specific enough to advise Smith of the statutorily mandated disclosures that a present ability to pay hearing could occur and is inadequate notice. Smith was not prejudiced by the fact that he was not given notice in compliance with the statutory provision. The statute authorizes a court to direct payment of its attorney cost order from an identified source. Affirmed.
Pacific Bell v. The City of San Diego
Case No. D033640
California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division One
TORTS-DAMAGES CAUSED BY BREAK OF WATER PIPE OWNED BY CITY-IMMUNITY UNDER TORT CLAIM ACT-STRICT LIABILITY FOR INVERSE CONDEMNATION
Pacific Bell's facility suffered substantial damage when a corroded cast iron water pipe burst and flooded the facility. The pipe was owned and maintained by The City of San Diego and would not have burst had it not been corroded. Pacific Bell sought inverse condemnation damages from City. The trial court held that a claim may not be brought under inverse condemnation if the same claim would be barred by the statutory immunities described in the Tort Claims Act. Judgment was for the City.
HELD: The fundamental policy underlying the concept of inverse condemnation is that the costs of a public improvement benefiting the community should be spread among those benefited rather than allocated to a single member of the community. Under inverse condemnation any actual physical injury to real property proximately caused by a public improvement as deliberately designed and constructed is compensable whether foreseeable or not. On the other hand, the government absolute immunity against claims under the Tort Claims Act for injury to persons or property caused by firefighting equipment. The immunities provided by the Tort Claims Act do not insulate a public entity from liability for inverse condemnation; the constitutional provisions requiring compensation for property taken or damaged by a public use overrides the Tort Claims Act and its statutory immunities. The evidence here showed City's water delivery system was deliberately designed, constructed and maintained without any method or program for monitoring the inevitable deterioration of cast iron pipes other than waiting for a pipe to break. The Court found that the ordinary rules of inverse condemnation strict liability for damages caused by public improvements are applicable to the fact of this case. Reversed.
People v. Ranger Insurance Company
Case Nos. B128613/B129250
California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Two
CRIMINAL-EXTENSION OF TIME FOR FORFEITURE OF BAIL BOND-SHOWING OF GOOD CAUSE REQUIRED
Ranger became the surety on a bail bond issued to secure the appearance of Emilio Telles, who was charged with child molestation. Telles failed to appear at a scheduled appearance in March 1998 and bail was ordered forfeited. The court clerk properly mailed notice of the forfeiture on April 21, 1998. On either October 18 or 19, 1998, Ranger moved to extend the 180-day statutory period of forfeiture that was about to expire. The basis of the motion was that an investigator had located a positive address for Telles in Baja California. The trial court denied the motion.
HELD: The Penal Code requires a showing of good cause in order to extend the time in which the forfeiture of a bail bond may be exonerated. The automatic 180-day period for exoneration of a bond may be extended up to another 180 days on a showing of good cause. A bail bond forfeiture extension is not automatic. Ranger has to earn any additional time by a showing of good cause. That means an explanation of what efforts Ranger made to locate Telles during the initial 180 days, and why such efforts were unsuccessful. The cursory declaration that was filed in this matter is incomplete. The trial court's ruling did not exceed the bounds of reason. Affirmed.
Lindstrom v. The Hertz Corporation
Case No. B128724
California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Six
PERSONAL INJURY-DUTY OR CAR RENTAL AGENCY TO PERSON INJURED BY DRIVER OF RENTAL CAR
France is from England. Hertz, through its LAX office, rented France a car after he displayed a valid British driver's license and the rental agent verified his signature. Lindstrom was injured in a collision with the rented car driven by France. Lindstrom sued Hertz. Summary adjudication was for Hertz, on the ground that Hertz fulfilled its legal duty by determining that France had a valid driver's license.
HELD: A rental car company may be held liable for negligently entrusting one of its cars to a customer. The negligence question is one of forseeability of an unreasonable risk of harm in renting the car. There is no evidence here that Hertz knew or should have known that France was an incompetent driver or that Hertz had knowledge of any circumstances that would put it on notice that France was an incompetent driver. He possessed a valid driver's license and met the qualifications set forth in the statute. The existence of a duty is a question of public policy. Public policy is defined by the Legislature, not the court. Hertz did not owe or breach a duty of care to Lindstrom. Affirmed.
Plaza Freeway Limited v. First Mountain Bank
Case No. E025404
California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division Two
REAL PROPERTY-CONCLUSIVE EFFECT OF FACTS STATED IN ESTOPPEL CERTIFICATE
Plaza Freeway Limited Partnership and First Mountain Bank are successors in interest to the original landlord and tenant of commercial real property under a 25-year lease agreement. The parties were unable to determine the termination date of the ground lease. At the time of Plaza's purchase of the property, the Bank signed and delivered an estoppel certificate, which provided a lease termination date of October 31, 1998. The trial court found he date on the estoppel certificate incorrect, and decided that the termination date was June 30, 1999. The court concluded that the exercise of the Bank's option to renew on January 26, 1998, was timely.
HELD: The Civil Code provides that the facts recited in a written instrument are conclusively presumed to be true as between the parties thereto, or their successors in interest. The estoppel certificate was a written instrument within the meaning of the evidence code and, the Bank was bound by the representations contained therein. Reversed.
Tahoe Vista Concerned Citizens v. The County of Placer/Rafton
Case No. C032876
California Court of Appeal, Third District
(Certified for publication with the exception of parts III and IV.)
REAL PROPERTY-USE OF PARKING DEMAND TABLE FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT-EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES-NECESSITY TO RAISE OBJECTION AT EACH ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING
Rafton applied to the County of Placer a conditional use permit to redevelop a portion of their Vista Shores Resort. The County's analysis determined that the project would not have a significant effect on the environment and issued a negative declaration. When the conclusion was challenged a public hearing was held and the negative declaration again approved. The only issue raised was the matter of adequate parking provisions for the project. Plaintiff sought mandate. The trial court granted Rafton's motion for summary judgment, on the ground plaintiff failed to exhaust its administrative remedies.
HELD: The Public Resources Code provides that, on action or proceeding may be brought pursuant to CEQA unless the alleged grounds for noncompliance with this division were presented to the public agency orally or in writing by any person during the public comment period. The requirement of exhaustion of administrative remedy is founded on the theory that the administrative tribunal is created by law to adjudicate the issue sought to be presented to the court, and the issue is within its special jurisdiction. If a court allows a suit to go forward prior to a final administrative determination, it will be interfering with the subject matter of another tribunal. The Parking Demand Table used in determining the number of parking spaces for a project vested discretion in the County to allocate parking based on units or guest rooms. The County thus proceeded in the manner required by law, and substantial evidence supports the County's finding that the project complied with the Parking Demand Table. Affirmed.
Wasserman's Archived Appellate Summaries
Back to Netlaw Libraries' Home Page