Successful Jury Verdict in Solano County

In 2008, Solano County sued Michelle Valine to take roughly 10 acres of a Suisun Valley property her family has owned and farmed for decades.  It did so to construct an expressway paralleling I-80 from Chadbourne Road to Business Center Drive.  That expressway now bisects the 82-acre property where Ms. Valine lives, inviting cars and pedestrians – along with trespassing, vandalism, and theft – to her previously secluded, idyllic rural farmstead. Access to the northern and southern portions of the property is now right in/right out only, so to get from one side of the property to the other, Valine must leave her property and travel over a mile in either direction, making U-Turns at signalized intersections.

The County contended Valine’s remaining property suffered minimal, if any, negative effects as a result of its project.  To the contrary, Valine and DNLC argued the project stripped Valine’s homestead of privacy and security, and maintained that it reduced farming efficiency, resulting in significant severance damages to the remaining property.

The County hired two appraisers to testify at trial.  Neither agreed Valine’s remainder property suffered any significant damage, and one testified the property was actually “benefited” by the project. The first appraiser testified that total compensation should be capped at $450,000, including only $129,600 for severance damages. The second urged an award of only $350,408 in total compensation.

Valine made a final settlement demand of $877,000. The County made a final offer of $750,000, to be shared by Valine and a land trust that holds a conservation easement over the property. The case proceeded to trial, and the jury awarded total compensation of $1,252,971, including $328,823 for the value of the property taken and $924,148 in severance damages – over half a million dollars more than the County’s final offer. Upon entry of judgment, Valine filed a motion to recover litigation expenses on the grounds that County’s final offer was unreasonable and that her demand was reasonable. The motion will be decided pending final apportionment of the jury’s award between Valine and conservation easement holder.