The Arizona Court of Appeals has upheld a lower court’s decision in a case involving a property condemnation dispute, affirming the judgment against property owners who contested the compensation awarded for their land. The City of Phoenix filed the complaint on February 11, 2026, in Maricopa County Superior Court against Esperanza I. Gonzales and El Tacazo, Inc., who were challenging the eminent domain action related to a light rail project.
In this legal battle, Esperanza I. Gonzales, acting as Trustee of her trust and alongside El Tacazo, Inc., appealed against a judgment that condemned part of their property located along Central Avenue in South Phoenix. This property is home to El Tacazo’s quick-serve restaurant and spans over 16,000 square feet. The dispute arose from the City of Phoenix’s 2019 authorization of the South Central Extension/Downtown Hub Light Rail Project. As part of this project, in June 2021, the city sought to acquire approximately 1,000 square feet of Gonzales’ property for widening Central Avenue and securing gas and water easements.
The primary contention was over just compensation for the land taken and any severance damages due to its partial acquisition. Arizona law mandates fair compensation not only for the value of condemned property but also for any decrease in value to remaining land due to its separation from acquired portions or subsequent construction impacts. While Gonzales did not contest the city’s valuation of $18,264 for the parcel and easements or $527 annually for temporary construction easements, she disputed claims that no severance damages were owed.
Gonzales introduced an appraisal report by William Dominick estimating $594,960 in severance damages linked to potential crime increases at her property during construction and difficulties selling it amid ongoing works. However, Dominick’s testimony was excluded by the superior court under Rule 702 for lacking sufficient factual basis—deeming his opinions speculative without concrete data supporting increased crime rates or sales impact due to nearby light rail development.
The court further ruled that alleged business losses or disruptions attributed to police power exercises were non-compensable under existing laws governing eminent domain proceedings. Despite arguments presented on appeal regarding Dominick’s disallowed expert testimony concerning both security costs and marketability during construction phases—the appellate court found no abuse of discretion by trial judges upholding these exclusions based on insufficient evidence underpinning such claims.
Ultimately awarding $20,372 as full compensation without additional severance awards—the appellate decision underscores judicial emphasis on substantiated expert evaluations within real estate litigation contexts involving public infrastructure expansions impacting private holdings.
Representing parties involved included Nossaman LLP attorneys Christopher W. Kramer; Brian Imbornoni; William E Bassoff advocating plaintiff/appellee positions while Wilenchik & Bartness PC lawyers Dennis I Wilenchik; William M Fischbach; Garo V Moughalian defended appellants’ interests before Honorable Danielle J Viola presiding over initial hearings leading up through appeals overseen collectively by Judges Andrew J Becke (authoring opinion), Samuel A Thumma & Kent E Cattani under Case ID No: CV2021-009417/CV2022-009780 respectively.
Source: 1CACV250308_City_of_Phoenix_v_Gonzales_Opinion_Arizona_Court_of_Appeals.pdf