COMMONWEALTH TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIONER OF VIRGINIA
v.
CLAUDINE S. CAMPER FAMILY TRUST
VDOT INITIAL OFFER: $2,058,395
SETTLED DURING TRIAL: $3,800,000
The Trust owned a small shopping center on a busy corner in Virginia Beach, Virginia. VDOT decided to expand the road and take a large portion of the shopping center’s parking and change and restrict ingress and egress to the shopping center. The loss of parking and access to the center was a major detriment and resulted in significant diminution in the value to the remainder. VDOT’s take eliminated the majority of the parking spaces, ingress and egress points and destroyed onsite circuitry. Seeing the full impact of the take VDOT offered to settle the case with the jury in the courtroom.
COMMONWEALTH TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIONER OF VIRGINIA
v.
TARGET CORPORATION A/K/A TARGET STORES, INC..
Commonwealth Transp. Com'r v. Target Corp.,
650 S.E.2d 92 (Va. 2007).
VDOT INITIAL OFFER: $115,000
JURY AWARD FOR
PROPERTY TAKEN: $175,100
JURY AWARD FOR
DAMAGE TO RESIDUE: $3,324,900
TOTAL JURY AWARD
FOR CLIENT: $3,500,000
On September 14, 2007, the Supreme Court of Virginia upheld the jury’s award of $3,500,000, plus interest, where VDOT constructed an elevated road and bridge that changed the highest and best use of a Target retail store in Fairfax. When the case reached the Virginia Supreme Court on appeal by VDOT the court affirmed the jury’s verdict and the trial judge’s ruling including the significance of the scope of the project rule and held that the amount of the jury verdict was not unreasonable, nor excessive.
VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY
v.
ROCK MINISTRIES, INC.
VEPCO INITIAL OFFER: $186,584
SETTLEMENT AMOUNT: $2,500,000
VEPCO condemned 25 acres for a transmission line easement to build a 235KV-power line and condemned 279 acres for a conservation easement to mitigate wetland damages that the construction of the power line caused in Southeast Virginia. Rock Ministries’ property was located on the North Landing River, part of the Intracoastal Waterway, where the property was best suited for development with high-end estate homes with recreational facilities maximizing the one and a half miles of deep water access. The 279-acre conservation easement took away the ability to develop the property’s major attribute—its extensive frontage on the Intracoastal Waterway.
NORFOLK REDEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING AUTHORITY
v.
C AND C REAL ESTATE, INC.
Norfolk Redevelopment and Housing Authority v. C and C Real Estate, Inc.,
272 Va. 2 (2006).
RESULT AT TRIAL: Condemnation Defeated, Property Owner Maintained Possession of the Property
FEES, COSTS & EXPENSES
RECOVERED FOR CLIENT: $346,221
In a case that went before the Virginia Supreme Court twice, the landowner defeated the Norfolk Redevelopment and Housing Authority’s (NRHA) attempt to condemn the property and the Virginia Supreme Court ruled the condemnation illegal. In Virginia, if a landowner defeats a condemnor’s effort to take their property the law provides that the landowner is to be fully reimbursed for its “reasonable costs, disbursements, and expenses, including reasonable attorney, appraisal and engineering fees, actually incurred because of the condemnation proceedings.” Because Waldo & Lyle was able to defeat NRHA’s condemnation, C and C was entitled to recover its costs, expenses and fees incurred during the litigation of the case, including NRHA’s unsuccessful attempt to appeal to the Virginia Supreme Court and deny the property owner its costs and attorney fees.
