§ 1245.270.Member Voting In Favor of Resolution Receive Or Agreed to Receive Bribe
Title 7. Eminent Domain Law · Chapter 4. Precondemnation Activities · Article 2. Resolution of Necessity · Last amended 2024 · Last verified July 29, 2026
In one sentenceSection 1245.270 lets a condemnation defendant defeat a resolution of necessity by proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, both that a member who voted for it received or agreed to receive a bribe connected to the resolution and that the resolution would not otherwise have been adopted.
(a)A resolution of necessity does not meet the requirements of this article if the defendant establishes by a preponderance of the evidence both of the following:
(1)A member of the governing body who voted in favor of the resolution received or agreed to receive a bribe, as defined in Section 7 of the Penal Code, involving adoption of the resolution.
(2)But for the conduct described in paragraph (1), the resolution would not otherwise have been adopted.
(b)Where there has been a prior criminal prosecution of the member for the conduct described in paragraph (1) of subdivision (a), proof of conviction shall be conclusive evidence that the requirement of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) is satisfied, and proof of acquittal or other dismissal of the prosecution shall be conclusive evidence that the requirement of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) is not satisfied. Where there is a pending criminal prosecution of the member for the conduct described in paragraph (1) of subdivision (a), the court may take such action as is just under the circumstances of the case.
(c)Nothing in this section precludes a public entity from rescinding a resolution of necessity and adopting a new resolution as to the same property, subject to the same consequences as a conditional dismissal of the proceeding under Section 1260.120.
Plain-English Summary
This is the most direct check on outright corruption in the resolution process. A resolution of necessity fails to meet this article's requirements if the defendant proves two things by a preponderance of the evidence: that a governing-body member who voted in favor received or agreed to receive a bribe, as the Penal Code defines it, connected to adopting the resolution, and that but for that bribery, the resolution would not otherwise have been adopted.
Prior criminal proceedings carry real weight here. A conviction of the member for that conduct is conclusive evidence that the bribery element is satisfied; an acquittal or other dismissal is conclusive evidence that it isn't. If a prosecution is still pending when this issue comes up, the court can take whatever action is just given the circumstances, rather than waiting indefinitely.
As with the gross-abuse-of-discretion challenge in § 1245.255, a successful showing under this section doesn't necessarily end the case for good — the entity can still rescind the tainted resolution and adopt a new one, subject to the same consequences as a conditional dismissal under § 1260.120.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can bribery invalidate a resolution of necessity?
Yes. Section 1245.270 lets a defendant defeat the resolution by proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a member who voted in favor received or agreed to receive a bribe connected to the resolution, and that the resolution wouldn't have been adopted but for that conduct.
Does a criminal conviction of the member automatically resolve this issue?
Yes for the bribery element — a conviction is conclusive evidence it's satisfied, while an acquittal or dismissal is conclusive evidence it isn't.
What if the criminal case against the member is still pending?
The court may take whatever action is just under the circumstances rather than waiting for the criminal case to conclude.
If the resolution fails under this section, can the entity try again?
Yes. The entity can rescind and adopt a new resolution for the same property, subject to the same consequences as a conditional dismissal under § 1260.120.
Amendment History
Amended by Stats 2024 ch 72 (SB 156),s 1, eff. 7/2/2024. Added by Stats. 1975, Ch. 1275.
Source & verification. Section text is reproduced verbatim from
the Deering's California Codes Annotated / vLex. Enacted by the California Legislature.
Last verified July 29, 2026.
· Official source
Also known as:bribery resolution of necessity californiacorrupt vote eminent domain resolution