In City of Gardena v. Camp (1977) 70 Cal.App.3d 252, the city's offer closely adhered to its appraiser's estimate of the taking, which did not include severance damages. The defendants' appraisal was significantly higher, but their demand showed they were willing to accept quite a bit less. The city's gamble did not succeed. The jury returned an award that coincided with the opinion of the defense expert. (Id. at p. 255.) In reversing the trial court's denial of litigation expenses, the Court of Appeal observed, "The City's offer amounted to less than 60 percent of the value of the property as determined by the jury. The offer was substantially lower in absolute terms ($ 21,756.50) than the award. The City was oblivious to the opinion of defendants' expert appraiser that significant severance damages would attend condemnation of the property. Certainly the City was entitled to have confidence in its appraisal, but unyielding adherence thereto was incompatible with that spirit of compromise one would expect of a reasonable condemner. The City's offer of $ 2,250 more than its appraisal was a mere token. Defendant's demand of $ 43,000 was considerably below the appraisal of their expert, and the $ 40,000 modified demand evidenced a willingness to further compromise on the question of value." (Camp, supra, 70 Cal.App.3d at p. 257, ) Camp cited with approval the decision in County of Los Angeles v. Kranz (1977) where the county's final offer was not only significantly lower than the adjudicated value of the property, but only nominally above its own expert's appraisal. (Camp, supra, 70 Cal.App.3d at pp. 256-257.) Acknowledging that the question of reasonableness was addressed in the first instance to the trial court (Kranz, supra, at p. 659), Kranz nevertheless held that the offer was unreasonable as a matter of law. "The county's offer ignored landowners' expert's appraisal of $ 96,750. While experts often differ, the substantial difference between appraisals should have cast some doubt on the accuracy of the county's appraisal ... ." (Id. at p. 660.) Kranz ruled that the county should have realized "that a jury would give some weight to the opinion of each expert, and fix the fair market value of the property somewhere between the two." (Ibid.) It also found significant that while the owners came down "more than half way on their demand," the county "stubbornly stuck to its own appraisal plus a small amount which would barely cover landowners' added costs of preparing the cause for trial." (Ibid.)