California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI) (2017)

3504. Project Enhanced Value

Download PDF
3504.Project Enhanced Value
You must consider any increase or decrease in the property’s fair
market value caused by public knowledge of [insert entity’s purpose for
condemning the property] until [insert date of property’s probable
inclusion]. You may not consider any change in value caused by [insert
entity’s purpose for condemning the property] after that date. You may,
however, consider other factors that changed the property’s value after
[insert date of property’s probable inclusion], but before [insert date of
valuation].
New September 2003
Sources and Authority
• Exclusions From Fair Market Value. Code of Civil Procedure section 1263.330.
• “A legitimate element of just compensation lies in the increase in value
resulting from a reasonable expectation that a particular piece of property will
be outside a proposed public improvement, and thus will reap the benefits of
that improvement.” (Merced Irrigation Dist. v. Woolstenhulme (1971) 4 Cal.3d
478, 488 [93 Cal.Rptr. 833, 483 P.2d 1].)
• “The ‘market value’ of a given piece of property, of course, reflects a great
variety of factors independent of the size, nature, or condition of the property
itself. The general character of the neighborhood, the quality of the public and
private services, and the availability of public facilities all play important roles
in establishing market value. Thus, widespread knowledge of a proposed public
improvement, planned for an indefinite location within a given region or
neighborhood, will frequently cause the market value of land in the region or
neighborhood to rise.” (Merced Irrigation Dist., supra, 4 Cal.3d at p. 488.)
• “[W]e now hold that increases in value, attributable to a project but reflecting a
reasonable expectation that property will not be taken for the improvement,
should properly be considered in determining ‘just compensation.’ ” (Merced
Irrigation Dist., supra, 4 Cal.3d at p. 495.)
• “[I]n computing ‘just compensation’ in such a case, a jury should only consider
the increase in value attributable to the project up until the time when it became
probable that the land would be needed for the improvement.” (Merced
Irrigation Dist., supra, 4 Cal.3d at p. 498.)
Secondary Sources
8 Witkin, Summary of California Law (10th ed. 2005) Constitutional Law, § 1234
1Condemnation Practice in California (Cont.Ed.Bar 3d ed.) §§ 4.3–4.8
3 Nichols on Eminent Domain, Ch. 8A, Enhancement, §§ 8A.01–8A.02 (Matthew
Bender)
581
0011
4 Nichols on Eminent Domain, Ch. 12B, Valuation of the Fee Interest, § 12B.17
(Matthew Bender)
CACI No. 3504 EMINENT DOMAIN
582
0012