Fresno Tile Business Owner Faces Auction of $3.5M Inventory After City Took Building, $15.6M Judgment
Art Terzian’s 40-year tile business sits locked behind a property line he can’t cross. The City of Fresno took his building at McKinley Avenue for a grade-separation project. His inventory — roughly 2,300 pallets he estimates at $3.5 million retail value — is still inside. And on Monday, September 21, at 9 a.m., the Fresno County Sheriff plans to auction it all off to satisfy a separate $15.6 million judgment against him.
Terzian’s attorney filed an emergency petition with the California Fifth District Court of Appeal two days ago, asking the court to stop the sale while Terzian appeals the judgment. The auction, scheduled for 1780 E. McKinley Ave., stems from a 2021 lawsuit filed by Brooke and Gina Ashjian over a failed land-sale agreement.
The two legal disputes — the city’s eminent-domain case and the Ashjians’ contract lawsuit — are separate, but they’ve collided over the same inventory. Terzian says he can’t move the tile because the city won’t let him on the property. The city says it’s tried repeatedly to help him remove it, but claims he’s been uncooperative. And the Ashjians’ attorney says the sale will help clear the way for the city’s stalled public-works project.
“If I cross this line, I get arrested,” Terzian said. “The city owns it. I’ll be trespassing.”
The Breakdown
- The City of Fresno took Terzian’s A&T Ceramic property through eminent domain for the Blackstone-McKinley Grade Separation Project. City records show the Fresno City Council approved up to $1.1 million for moving Terzian’s inventory, one year of storage, and insurance as part of the relocation.
- Terzian says he never received that money, even after his attorney asked for it. He says city representatives promised to help him relocate but that finding a building large enough (about 28,000 square feet) within the city’s price range proved difficult. He wanted to move the inventory himself because of the volume and care required.
- Documents show the city’s attorney wrote Terzian’s attorney in June, saying Terzian had refused a moving agreement and giving him a deadline to sign it. Terzian’s attorney responded that the city had refused to provide the relocation assistance Terzian was seeking, and that Terzian was willing to relocate the inventory himself if the city provided payment for those expenses. The city did not respond to that proposal, according to Terzian’s attorney.
- The scheduled auction does not stem from the city’s eminent-domain case. It’s part of an effort to collect on a $15,589,289 judgment awarded to Brooke and Gina Ashjian in April. A judge found Terzian breached a land-sale contract and awarded lost-profit damages tied to a planned apartment project that was never built.
- Terzian is appealing that judgment, arguing the damages are too speculative because the project was never constructed. An earlier judgment of nearly $4 million was overturned by an appeals court in 2024, and the case returned to court for a new trial in March.
What This Means for You
The City Council approved relocation funds, and there is a dispute over whether the city fulfilled its obligation to a displaced business owner. If you’re a Fresno voter weighing how the city handles eminent domain — who gets paid, who gets moved, and whether promised assistance actually arrives — this is a concrete example of what that process looks like when it breaks down. The city says it tried; Terzian says he asked for the approved money and never got it. That gap matters when you’re deciding whether the council and administration you elect are administering takings fairly, or leaving business owners to sort it out under threat of arrest.
The separate $15.6 million judgment — and whether damages for a never-built project should stand — is now before an appeals court. But the immediate question is whether the inventory gets sold Monday before that appeal is heard.
What to Watch
The City Council approved $1.1 million in relocation assistance. Terzian says he never received it. The city says Terzian refused to sign a moving agreement. Terzian’s attorney says the city refused to pay for the kind of move Terzian was willing to do himself. That’s not a communication problem — that’s a question of whether the city’s process for fulfilling its own approved relocation obligations actually works, or whether it’s structured to let the city say “we offered” without ever cutting the check.
The Ashjians’ attorney says selling the tile will “help clear the way for the City to move forward with its planned public works project—something Mr. Terzian has repeatedly obstructed.” That framing — treating a business owner’s inability to access his own inventory as obstruction of a city project — raises a real question about whose timeline the eminent-domain process is designed to serve. If the city took the building but left the owner unable to remove what’s inside, is the delay the owner’s fault, or the city’s?
The $15.6 million judgment hinges on lost profits from an apartment project that was never built. Terzian is appealing on the grounds that speculative damages shouldn’t stand. If that appeal succeeds, the sale on Monday will have liquidated his business to satisfy a judgment that didn’t hold up. If the appeal fails, the Ashjians are owed what a court says they lost. Either way, the question is whether an auction should proceed before an appeal is heard — and whether “post a bond or we sell” is a reasonable standard when the underlying judgment is actively disputed.
