A public agency’s goal in condemning property is often to acquire it free of all claims by third parties to any of the “bundle of rights” associated with it. For this reason, agency attorneys typically name as defendants all of the holders of legal interests (easements, liens, deeds of trust, etc.) listed on title, as well as leaseholders and other potential interest holders that can be surmised by inspecting the property.
The eminent domain law provides a unique method of easily resolving circumstances where a named defendant has no desire to seek compensation for the property being condemned. This is called a disclaimer, which is discussed in Section 1250.325 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The disclaimer may be filed with the court at any time (even after the defendant’s default), and is typically incorporated in the judgment at the end of the case by mimicking the disclaimer’s statement that the defendant claims no interest in either the property or the condemnation award.
Parties who have filed a disclaimer often ask afterwards to be dismissed from the eminent domain action. While the Law Revision Commission Comments indicate that a disclaimer may result in a dismissal as to the disclaiming defendant, this does not make sense in circumstances where the condemning party needs to acquire the disclaiming party’s interest in the property. For this reason, I generally recommend against dismissing the disclaiming party and instead seek a judgment in condemnation of the disclaiming defendant’s interests in the property with no compensation awarded. This way, the disclaiming defendant no longer shows up on title as a potential interest holder in the condemned property.