Eminent Domain Blog

On April 11, 2014, the North Carolina Supreme Court issued its opinion in the case of Beroth Oil Company, et al. v. North Carolina Department of Transportation.  The Court granted discretionary review of the Court of Appeal‘s unanimous decision to deny class certification to the plaintiffs, who are landowners in the path of the Northern Beltway in Winston Salem.  In a 5 to 2 ruling, the Court held that the trial court and Court of Appeal’s analysis of the merits of the underlying inverse condemnation claim was improper, but also affirmed the lower courts‘ decisions not to certify the plaintiffs as a class, finding that “because of unique nature of property, coupled with the large number of diverse tracts involved in this litigation, individual issues would predominate over common issues of law and fact in a trial on the merits.”

Recently, a reporter with the Weekly Standard paid a visit to New London, Connecticut, site of perhaps the most well-known eminent domain controversy in the country.  As you will recall, New London hoped to jump-start economic development in the city and add much-needed jobs.  To realize this goal, in 1998 the city partnered with New London Development Corporation (NLDC), a private nonprofit organization.  The anchor to the revitalization project was Pfizer, which was offered copious tax breaks to locate a $300 million research facility in the Fort Trumbull area of New London.  The hope was that the Pfizer facility would draw additional mixed development to the area.  NLDC’s plan called for nearly 90 acres in the Fort Trumbull area to be redeveloped, which included approximately 115 privately owned properties. Continue reading “Kelo Revisited”

A recent North Carolina Court of Appeals decision reinforces the importance of choosing an attorney familiar with proper procedure in eminent domain cases.  In City of Wilson v. the Batten Family, et al., a condemnation case out of Wilson County, Defendants moved for a 108 hearing in early 2010.  (A 108 hearing is held pursuant to NCGS 136-108 in order to determine issues other than compensation.)  The 108 hearing was held in July of 2010.  In November of 2011 Defendants filed another motion for an additional 108 hearing; this motion was denied by the trial court.  The Defendants appealed this decision and the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision.  The Court of Appeals pointed out that Defendants should have appealed the order from the first 108 hearing rather than waiting more than a year to request a second hearing.

The take-away message for anyone considering hiring an attorney to represent them when their land is being taken is that you should make sure your attorney is experienced in practicing in the field of condemnation / eminent domain.