pdf guillermo maldonado jesus sana tu enfermedad hoy epub
guillermo maldonado jesus sana tu enfermedad hoy mobi
guillermo maldonado jesus sana tu enfermedad hoy
anime guillermo maldonado jesus sana tu enfermedad hoy time of trial.
[7] We conclude that there was evidence before the court to support the finding of perversity. While no expert evidence was offered on the question of the actual market value of the *533 premises at the time of the taking (an original of the appraisal was in the possession of the county counsel), the court received a series of valuations which indicated a decline in value during the period in question. The first of these (a tentative) report was prepared by the owners' real estate agent, Paul B. Brown, which was before the petition for appointment of appraisers was filed. That report placed the value of the premises at $17,500, and was based on the original purchase price of $45,000. The second appraisal was by counsel for the owners, which was based on the information obtained from the owners during the course of negotiations. This was considerably lower than the original Brown appraisal. A third valuation, based on an independent appraisal of the premises prepared for the owner, was received in evidence at the trial. This appraisal placed the value of the premises at $10,000, approximately $3,000 less than the other appraisals. (There was no objection to the introduction of the record of the third appraisal.)
The evidence was sufficient to justify the finding that the owners were not guilty of laches in seeking to have the court determine the amount of compensation due them by the county, and in seeking to protect their interest by taking the property.
[8] There was no error in the denial of the owners' motion for a continuance to permit the filing of an amended answer. The court had already taken a substantial amount of time on the question of compensation, and there was no reason to expect that a further continuance would be helpful in the disposition of the case. (See People v. Eisenberg, 73 Cal. 96, 100 [15 P. 596]; cf. 4 Cal.Jur.2d Sec. 57, p. 15.)
[9] The owners also assert that the court erred in its instructions to ac619d1d87
Related links:
Comments