Court Appears Split on Soka Land Case : Parkland: Appellate justices discuss conservancy’s bid for Calabasas campus.

In a rare display of public discord, three state appeals court justices appeared to disagree Thursday over how the laws apply to the attempt by state park authorities to seize Soka University’s scenic campus in Calabasas.

Justices of the 2nd District Court of Appeal appeared split over whether to dismiss the case on procedural grounds or whether to attack more substantial questions raised by lawyers for the university and the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy.

Twice during a 90-minute hearing at Ventura City Hall, the justices held private conferences to discuss how to proceed. At one point, Presiding Justice Steven J. Stone joked that they needed an arbitrator.

At issue was whether a subsidiary of the conservancy--a state agency that buys parkland--followed proper procedure when it launched eminent domain proceedings to condemn 245 acres of Soka’s campus at Las Virgenes Road and Mulholland Highway.

Ventura County Superior Court Judge Barbara A. Lane ruled earlier this year that the subsidiary--the Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority--erred when it went to the Ventura County Board of Supervisors for permission to carry out the condemnation action against the Soka campus, which is entirely within Los Angeles County.

But conservancy lawyers argued in their appeal that the Ventura County board was the proper body to consider the request. The recreation authority has a joint-powers agreement with two Ventura County parks agencies, they contended, and so is overseen by the supervisors, who approved the condemnation request.

Ultimately, the eminent domain action against Soka was filed in Los Angeles County. That proceeding is on hold until the appeals court issues a ruling early next year.

Soka lawyers have charged that conservancy officials used the recreation authority to launch the eminent domain proceedings to avoid oversight by the California Public Works Board, which reviews condemnation actions by state agencies.

Associate Justice Arthur Gilbert said he was “tipping my hand” when he asked several questions about the propriety of a Ventura County judge deciding issues in a Los Angeles County case. He said Soka’s objections should be argued as part of the overall condemnation case.

“It all should be in one court,” he said. “It just makes eminent sense to me.”

There are three likely outcomes to the case:

* The justices can overturn the Ventura County judge’s decision on procedural grounds, which would mean essentially that Lane had no legal business ruling on the case. In that instance, lawyers for Soka and the conservancy could continue to argue the issue before a Los Angeles County judge.

* Or they could overturn the case on its merits, concluding that the Ventura County judge was justified in ruling on the case, but was wrong in her interpretation of the laws. Should that happen, the Los Angeles County case would proceed and Soka would likely appeal to the California Supreme Court.

* Finally, the justices can uphold the Ventura court’s decision, which effectively would kill the condemnation action. The conservancy would likely appeal to the state Supreme Court.

The eminent domain action is the latest skirmish in a long and bitter fight between Soka administrators and state and federal parks officials, who have long coveted the school’s land for use as a visitors center for the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area.