Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue v. Amerco Real Estate Co.

Argued and submitted July 28, 2020, affirmed July 28, petition for review denied November 24, 2021 (368 Or 788)

TUALATIN VALLEY FIRE AND RESCUE, a rural fire protection district, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. AMERCO REAL ESTATE COMPANY, a Nevada corporation, Defendant-Appellant. Washington County Circuit Court 17CV14497; A168891 491 P3d 829

Theodore E. Sims, Judge. James T. McDermott argued the cause for appellant. Also on the briefs were Gabriel M. Weaver and Ball Janik LLP. Cynthia M. Fraser argued the cause for respondent. Also on the brief were Paul H. Trinchero and Foster Garvey PC. Before Lagesen, Presiding Judge, and James, Judge, and Kamins, Judge. PER CURIAM Affirmed.

630 Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue v. Amerco Real Estate Co.

PER CURIAM Defendant, Amerco Real Estate Company (AREC), appeals the judgment entered in a public condemnation pro- ceeding that condemned defendant’s land for the purpose of building a fire station for plaintiff, Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue (TVFR). On appeal, AREC does not challenge the just compensation awarded. Rather, AREC contends that the trial court erred in finding that TVFR had not abused its discretion or violated AREC’s constitutional rights in con- demning AREC’s property. In addition, AREC contends that the trial court erred in holding that AREC had the burden of proof on its legal challenge and that TVFR was entitled to evidentiary presumptions under ORS 35.235. We affirm. In AREC’s first assignment of error, it contends that the trial court erred in concluding that TVFR’s condemna- tion of AREC’s property satisfied the Fifth Amendment’s procedural and substantive due process requirements, as well as Oregon’s statutory requirements in eminent domain cases. Having considered those contentions, we are not per- suaded that the trial court erred in concluding that TVFR complied with the statutory and constitutional due process required in the condemnation proceeding; TVFR followed the statutory condemnation procedures, and AREC was not entitled to more in these circumstances. We reject AREC’s second and third assignments of error in light of Wiard Memorial Park Dist. v. Wiard Community Pool, 183 Or App 448, 52 P3d 1080, rev den, 335 Or 114 (2002); and Emerald PUD v. Pacificorp, 100 Or App 79, 784 P2d 1112, adh’d to on recons, 101 Or App 48, 788 P2d 1034, rev den, 310 Or 121 (1990). Affirmed.