Significant Victories for Property Owners
The Virginia Electric and Power Company (VEPCO) was building a 235KV transmission power line in the area to upgrade its service to Southeast Virginia. VEPCO owned an existing easement that tracked the treeline of the Rock Ministries property, but which would require VEPCO to construct the line through area designated as wetlands, thereby significantly increasing its construction costs. Rather than bear the additional construction costs associated with wetland construction, VEPCO elected to condemn a new transmission line easement to run twenty-one 80 foot poles through the middle of the church's pristine property, thereby segmenting the property and leaving its sight-lines blemished. To accomplish this, VEPCO condemned 25 acres for the transmission line easement through the heart of the property.
However, because VEPCO had been constructing parts of its transmission line on wetland property of other owners, it also condemned 279 acres for a conservation easement to mitigate its wetland damages. The 279-acre conservation easement took away the ability to develop the property’s major attribute—its extensive frontage on the Intracoastal Waterway.
VEPCO initially offered Rock Ministries $186,584 for the taking and damaging of its property. Rock Ministries, on the advice of its general counsel, engaged Waldo & Lyle at the initial stages of the condemnation proceeding. Rock Ministries eventually agreed to a settlement of $2,500,000 for what VEPCO had done to its property.
4. Cumberland County School Board v. John and Mary Meeks
On October 29, 2001, the Board of Supervisors of Cumberland County approved the sale of an abandoned school building to the Meeks for their high bid of $110,000. The Meeks’ bid was one of only two bids offered at the public auction, the other being for just $1.00.
When the Meeks bought the property in 2001 the property was vacant, unrentable, and the buildings were deteriorating and in need of renovation and repair. Among the problematic conditions existing at the time of the Meeks’ bid in 2001 the following conditions stand out: the roofs leaked, leading to an accumulation of standing water, mold and mildew throughout the buildings; nearly three-fourths of the windows were broken and/or missing; many of the toilets had not been flushed in several years; the heating system did not work; the plumbing system did not work and many pipes were broken; due to the leaking roof the ceiling tiles had become moldy and many were missing; the stage in the auditorium had rotted through due to leaks in the roof; assorted books, papers, trash, desks and gym equipment were left throughout the building; spare rolls of insulation had been left in the auditorium and absorbed water, leaving them full of mold and mildew; the locks on the outside doors were either missing or inoperable, leaving the building unsecured; many of the light fixtures, both inside and outside the building, were not in working order; the concrete walkways surrounding the building had acquired a thick covering of mold; the shrubbery had become overgrown; the yard had barely been maintained; the mortar around many of the windows had rotted away; and pools of standing water had accumulated in the basements.
After purchasing the property, the Meeks made substantial renovations to the building and removed the above listed deficiencies in the property at great personal cost. Prior to condemnation the Meeks had completed substantial renovations to the property and had incurred over $400,000 in acquisition and renovation costs as well as their enormous investment of time. The renovations drastically changed the nature of the building from one that was deteriorating and unrentable in 2001 to one in good condition and being leased to several different entities in 2006.
It was in March of 2006 that the Cumberland County School Board decided that it wanted its newly renovated school building back to use again as a school. But rather than pay the Meeks for their expenses in renovating the buildings, the School Board sought to force a bargain sale upon the Meeks by offering them $200,000. The Meeks were rightly offended by the offer and brought in Waldo & Lyle as counsel. In February of 2007 a jury in Cumberland County awarded the Meeks $850,000, some 425% above the School Board’s offer.
5. VDOT v. Cartwright
A condemnation case took a multimillion-dollar wrong turn for the Virginia Department of Transportation in a Chesapeake courtroom yesterday.
A panel of commissioners awarded Chesapeake farmer Ray Cartwright roughly $90,000 for 13 acres of his farm taken to rebuild U.S. 17 and gave him $2.3 million in damages for 391 acres whose value was diminished by the limited-access road project.
VDOT initially had offered Cartwright $112,000 total, although it had upped that to $300,000 after he challenged the offer and went to court, said Joseph Waldo, Cartwright's lawyer. Susan Rubin, a lobbyist for the Virginia Farm Bureau Federation, said the court award validates the Farm Bureau's efforts at eminent-domain reform during the past General Assembly session. The Farm Bureau, the state's largest farmer group, has closely watched the Cartwright case. At the urging of the Farm Bureau and others, the legislature passed a bill this year that allows a court to award a landowner the cost to bring up to three expert witnesses to testify when a landowner challenges a condemnation offer and gets at least 30 percent more than the initial offer.
Cartwright's court award exceeded VDOTs original offer by more than 2,000 percent. Although he had hired three expert witnesses -- an appraiser, a surveyor and a land planner -- to appear in his case, their fees will have to come out of his court award because the new law does not take effect until July 1.
For his part, Cartwright said he was happy and relieved to have the case resolved. He said he has had to neglect his farming operation to pursue the court challenge. Cartwright, who grows corn and soybeans, took over the southwest Chesapeake farming operation from his father in 1976. His brothers and their children also are involved in the farm, he said.
The farm is divided into six parcels, with the 450-acre parcel involved in yesterday's case being the largest. When VDOT rebuilt U.S. 17, it left 391 acres of the parcel no public-road access. The state took 13 acres in August 2002, but he had warned VDOT nearly two years earlier that it was going to landlock the remainder of the property, Cartwright said. He said an agreement was worked out to give him access from the new road, but the state later backed off from that agreement.
Cartwright has been able to reach the property by using private roads and going through his neighbors' land, but the road project has cut off the legal access he would need to sell the property, attorney Waldo said. If the property had not been landlocked, it would be worth roughly $6,000 per acre, based on comparable sale of neighboring land, Waldo said. The vote of the commissioners, who act like a jury in other civil cases, was 3-2 for the $2.4 million award. The two opposing the outcome wanted to award Cartwright $1.7 million, which was still more than 1,400 percent above what VDOT initially offered.
"It was a huge victory for [the Cartwrights]. They stood up and they fought," Waldo said. VDOT has 10 days to appeal the award. Tamara Neale, spokeswoman for the transportation department, said it does not know yet how it will proceed. "We will look at the facts of the case and the opinion that was rendered . . . and decide what to do next."
-As Reported by Greg Edwards in The Richmond Times-Dispatch Friday, April 15 , 2005
6. East Tennessee Natural Gas Co. (ETNG) v. 34 Property Owners
On May 30, 2003, when the Federal Court granted East Tennessee Natural Gas/ Duke Energy immediate right of entry on the property of Harold Hart and Larry Ball, Harold Hart thought East Tennessee Natural Gas (ETNG) should stay in it's 100 foot easement area and off his 2 mile long farm road that he has managed for over 25 years. First Wythe County's Deputy came to force Harold to let ETNG contractors on his farm road. When the Deputy read the easement, he thought ETNG should stay in the easement area. Then a state trooper came, and he thought the same as the Deputy Sheriff. Finally, Federal Marshals came with Duke's Superintendent of Construction when Harold Hart was recovering from open-heart surgery. They came into his living room, and the Marshal threatened Harold with jail if he did not let East Tennessee Natural Gas use the farm road. Harold finally gave in.
In March, 2006, when it came time for a jury to decide just compensation that ETNG owed Harold Hart and Larry Ball, ETNG ignored the fact that Harold's and Larry's 400 acres on the corner of Interstate Route 77 and 81 to which the County was in the process of bringing industrial water and sewer was farm land and the 24 inch, high pressure, natural gas pipeline had no effect on the agricultural use of this property ideal for commercial industrial development. Before the pipeline came across Harold's and Larry's property, the County had almost sold the property to a major commercial venture for $6,000 an acre. The pipeline ran through the middle of the property below grade, 47 feet. The pipeline prevents anyone from cutting the tops of the hills and filling in the hollows to make sites for commercial industrial development. The pipeline destroyed the highest and best use for the property.
ETNG had entered the land on May 30, 2003, by depositing $30, 000 in the Court which is said was the value of the property they took from Harold Hart and Larry Ball as well as the damage to the other 400 acres. The jury rejected the appraisers testifying for ETNG and awarded Harold Hart and Larry Ball $1,879,000.
7. Norfolk Housing and Redevelopment Authority v. C and C Real Estate Inc.
In 1987, the Norfolk City Council directed Norfolk Redevelopment and Housing Authority (NRHA) to examine C and C’s property to determine whether governmental intervention was needed to rehabilitate the area. NRHA’s conservation plan, adopted by City Council in 1988, included a description of the property C and C came to own, which NRHA had determined was blighted. City Council authorized NRHA to acquire the property if the blight was not improved. However, no notice of the chance to remove the blight was given to C and C or their predecessors.
In December of 1999, NRHA sent C and C Real Estate a letter stating NRHA’s intent to acquire the property. NRHA made offers to buy the property, but C and C refused to sell. One of the reasons C and C rejected NRHA’s offer was NRHA’s refusal to compensate Andrews for the going business, despite the fact that it could not be relocated. In 2003, the Authority passed a resolution to condemn the property, fifteen years after the adoption of NRHA’s conservation plan.
In 2004, Waldo & Lyle challenged the right of NRHA to condemn C and C Real Estate’s property, even though there had been no cases since 1956 in which a housing authority in Virginia had been denied the right to take private property. After one and a half years of legal battles and circuit court hearings, Norfolk Circuit Court Judge John Morrison held that the NRHA was not authorized to condemn, as NRHA had not given C and C Real Estate the required one-year notice to correct blight.
NRHA appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of Virginia where the court affirmed the circuit court’s holdings: the language of the NRHA’s plan was overbroad and, therefore, did not allow for acquisition of C and C Real Estate’s property. The Court held that NRHA had a duty to provide C and C Real Estate with notice and an opportunity to correct any existing deficiencies prior to initiating any condemnation proceedings due to blight. As no such notice had been given, NRHA was not authorized to condemn C and C Real Estate’s property.
The Supreme Court of Virginia’s decision invalidated portions of an industrial conservation plan that had been in existence for nearly twenty years. For the first time in fifty years, the Court denied a housing authority the right to take property designated in a housing authority plan.
The story should conclude here, but it does not. Under Virginia law C and C, after defeating the effort to take their property, was entitled to recover the attorneys fees it incurred in defending its property and business. The NHRA disagreed with the law. In a succession of hearings throughout the fall of 2006 the NHRA attempted to deny C and C the lawful reimbursement of its attorneys fees. In February of 2007 the Circuit Court of Norfolk awarded C and C reimbursement of its attorneys fees.
NHRA has appealed this award to the Virginia Supreme Court. As of this writing the Court has not yet agreed to hear this appeal.
8. Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority v. Claytor
The Claytor family owned an entire city block in Roanoke. In 1976, the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority adopted a redevelopment plan and designated the entire block that the Claytors owned for condemnation. The Redevelopment Authority even went so far as to negotiate an option to sell the Claytor property to someone else.
When the redevelopment plan expired in 2001, 25 years after it was adopted, the Claytors sued the Redevelopment and Housing Authority, and the judge ruled that the Housing Authority was required to pay just compensation for placing the Claytor property under the cloud of condemnation for 25 years. The Housing Authority eventually paid the Claytors a judgment of $281,590, plus interest in the amount of $71, 661.70.
9. Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) v. Burris
In 1999, the Virginia Department of Transportation came to Mr. Burris and offered to buy his 16 acres of wetlands in Suffolk for $42,000. A new road ran across a very small portion of his land. Mr. Burris wondered why VDOT was paying $42,000 for all of his property. Mr. Burris, with the help of his lawyers, found out that VDOT needed his wetlands because it had destroyed wetlands constructing its new road and the law required VDOT to replace the destroyed wetlands as wetlands mitigation. VDOT had not told Mr. Burris his wetlands were very valuable. Through a trial, Mr. Burris was awarded $531,000 for his wetlands. VDOT tried to deprive Mr. Burris of $489,000 that the Constitution guaranteed him.
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. Virginia Electric and Power Company v. Rock Ministries, Inc.VEPCO INITIAL OFFER: $186,584
SETTLEMENT AMOUNT: $2,500,000
Rock Ministries, Inc. owned nearly 820 acres in Virginia Beach, Virginia. The church had planned to develop the property to raise funds for its ministry and was ideally situated to take advantage of nearby recent growth in southern Virginia Beach. 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 Virginia Electric and Power Company (VEPCO) was building a 235KV transmission power line in the area to upgrade its service to Southeast Virginia. VEPCO owned an existing easement that tracked the treeline of the Rock Ministries property, but which would require VEPCO to construct the line through area designated as wetlands, thereby significantly increasing its construction costs. Rather than bear the additional construction costs associated with wetland construction, VEPCO elected to condemn a new transmission line easement to run twenty-one 80 foot poles through the middle of the church's pristine property, thereby segmenting the property and leaving its sight-lines blemished. To accomplish this, VEPCO condemned 25 acres for the transmission line easement through the heart of the property.
However, because VEPCO had been constructing parts of its transmission line on wetland property of other owners, it also condemned 279 acres for a conservation easement to mitigate its wetland damages. The 279-acre conservation easement took away the ability to develop the property’s major attribute—its extensive frontage on the Intracoastal Waterway.
VEPCO initially offered Rock Ministries $186,584 for the taking and damaging of its property. Rock Ministries, on the advice of its general counsel, engaged Waldo & Lyle at the initial stages of the condemnation proceeding. Rock Ministries eventually agreed to a settlement of $2,500,000 for what VEPCO had done to its property.
4. Cumberland County School Board v. John and Mary Meeks
On October 29, 2001, the Board of Supervisors of Cumberland County approved the sale of an abandoned school building to the Meeks for their high bid of $110,000. The Meeks’ bid was one of only two bids offered at the public auction, the other being for just $1.00.
When the Meeks bought the property in 2001 the property was vacant, unrentable, and the buildings were deteriorating and in need of renovation and repair. Among the problematic conditions existing at the time of the Meeks’ bid in 2001 the following conditions stand out: the roofs leaked, leading to an accumulation of standing water, mold and mildew throughout the buildings; nearly three-fourths of the windows were broken and/or missing; many of the toilets had not been flushed in several years; the heating system did not work; the plumbing system did not work and many pipes were broken; due to the leaking roof the ceiling tiles had become moldy and many were missing; the stage in the auditorium had rotted through due to leaks in the roof; assorted books, papers, trash, desks and gym equipment were left throughout the building; spare rolls of insulation had been left in the auditorium and absorbed water, leaving them full of mold and mildew; the locks on the outside doors were either missing or inoperable, leaving the building unsecured; many of the light fixtures, both inside and outside the building, were not in working order; the concrete walkways surrounding the building had acquired a thick covering of mold; the shrubbery had become overgrown; the yard had barely been maintained; the mortar around many of the windows had rotted away; and pools of standing water had accumulated in the basements.
After purchasing the property, the Meeks made substantial renovations to the building and removed the above listed deficiencies in the property at great personal cost. Prior to condemnation the Meeks had completed substantial renovations to the property and had incurred over $400,000 in acquisition and renovation costs as well as their enormous investment of time. The renovations drastically changed the nature of the building from one that was deteriorating and unrentable in 2001 to one in good condition and being leased to several different entities in 2006.
It was in March of 2006 that the Cumberland County School Board decided that it wanted its newly renovated school building back to use again as a school. But rather than pay the Meeks for their expenses in renovating the buildings, the School Board sought to force a bargain sale upon the Meeks by offering them $200,000. The Meeks were rightly offended by the offer and brought in Waldo & Lyle as counsel. In February of 2007 a jury in Cumberland County awarded the Meeks $850,000, some 425% above the School Board’s offer.
5. VDOT v. Cartwright
A condemnation case took a multimillion-dollar wrong turn for the Virginia Department of Transportation in a Chesapeake courtroom yesterday.
A panel of commissioners awarded Chesapeake farmer Ray Cartwright roughly $90,000 for 13 acres of his farm taken to rebuild U.S. 17 and gave him $2.3 million in damages for 391 acres whose value was diminished by the limited-access road project.
VDOT initially had offered Cartwright $112,000 total, although it had upped that to $300,000 after he challenged the offer and went to court, said Joseph Waldo, Cartwright's lawyer. Susan Rubin, a lobbyist for the Virginia Farm Bureau Federation, said the court award validates the Farm Bureau's efforts at eminent-domain reform during the past General Assembly session. The Farm Bureau, the state's largest farmer group, has closely watched the Cartwright case. At the urging of the Farm Bureau and others, the legislature passed a bill this year that allows a court to award a landowner the cost to bring up to three expert witnesses to testify when a landowner challenges a condemnation offer and gets at least 30 percent more than the initial offer.
Cartwright's court award exceeded VDOTs original offer by more than 2,000 percent. Although he had hired three expert witnesses -- an appraiser, a surveyor and a land planner -- to appear in his case, their fees will have to come out of his court award because the new law does not take effect until July 1.
For his part, Cartwright said he was happy and relieved to have the case resolved. He said he has had to neglect his farming operation to pursue the court challenge. Cartwright, who grows corn and soybeans, took over the southwest Chesapeake farming operation from his father in 1976. His brothers and their children also are involved in the farm, he said.
The farm is divided into six parcels, with the 450-acre parcel involved in yesterday's case being the largest. When VDOT rebuilt U.S. 17, it left 391 acres of the parcel no public-road access. The state took 13 acres in August 2002, but he had warned VDOT nearly two years earlier that it was going to landlock the remainder of the property, Cartwright said. He said an agreement was worked out to give him access from the new road, but the state later backed off from that agreement.
Cartwright has been able to reach the property by using private roads and going through his neighbors' land, but the road project has cut off the legal access he would need to sell the property, attorney Waldo said. If the property had not been landlocked, it would be worth roughly $6,000 per acre, based on comparable sale of neighboring land, Waldo said. The vote of the commissioners, who act like a jury in other civil cases, was 3-2 for the $2.4 million award. The two opposing the outcome wanted to award Cartwright $1.7 million, which was still more than 1,400 percent above what VDOT initially offered.
"It was a huge victory for [the Cartwrights]. They stood up and they fought," Waldo said. VDOT has 10 days to appeal the award. Tamara Neale, spokeswoman for the transportation department, said it does not know yet how it will proceed. "We will look at the facts of the case and the opinion that was rendered . . . and decide what to do next."
-As Reported by Greg Edwards in The Richmond Times-Dispatch Friday, April 15 , 2005
6. East Tennessee Natural Gas Co. (ETNG) v. 34 Property Owners
On May 30, 2003, when the Federal Court granted East Tennessee Natural Gas/ Duke Energy immediate right of entry on the property of Harold Hart and Larry Ball, Harold Hart thought East Tennessee Natural Gas (ETNG) should stay in it's 100 foot easement area and off his 2 mile long farm road that he has managed for over 25 years. First Wythe County's Deputy came to force Harold to let ETNG contractors on his farm road. When the Deputy read the easement, he thought ETNG should stay in the easement area. Then a state trooper came, and he thought the same as the Deputy Sheriff. Finally, Federal Marshals came with Duke's Superintendent of Construction when Harold Hart was recovering from open-heart surgery. They came into his living room, and the Marshal threatened Harold with jail if he did not let East Tennessee Natural Gas use the farm road. Harold finally gave in.
In March, 2006, when it came time for a jury to decide just compensation that ETNG owed Harold Hart and Larry Ball, ETNG ignored the fact that Harold's and Larry's 400 acres on the corner of Interstate Route 77 and 81 to which the County was in the process of bringing industrial water and sewer was farm land and the 24 inch, high pressure, natural gas pipeline had no effect on the agricultural use of this property ideal for commercial industrial development. Before the pipeline came across Harold's and Larry's property, the County had almost sold the property to a major commercial venture for $6,000 an acre. The pipeline ran through the middle of the property below grade, 47 feet. The pipeline prevents anyone from cutting the tops of the hills and filling in the hollows to make sites for commercial industrial development. The pipeline destroyed the highest and best use for the property.
ETNG had entered the land on May 30, 2003, by depositing $30, 000 in the Court which is said was the value of the property they took from Harold Hart and Larry Ball as well as the damage to the other 400 acres. The jury rejected the appraisers testifying for ETNG and awarded Harold Hart and Larry Ball $1,879,000.
7. Norfolk Housing and Redevelopment Authority v. C and C Real Estate Inc.
In 1987, the Norfolk City Council directed Norfolk Redevelopment and Housing Authority (NRHA) to examine C and C’s property to determine whether governmental intervention was needed to rehabilitate the area. NRHA’s conservation plan, adopted by City Council in 1988, included a description of the property C and C came to own, which NRHA had determined was blighted. City Council authorized NRHA to acquire the property if the blight was not improved. However, no notice of the chance to remove the blight was given to C and C or their predecessors.
In December of 1999, NRHA sent C and C Real Estate a letter stating NRHA’s intent to acquire the property. NRHA made offers to buy the property, but C and C refused to sell. One of the reasons C and C rejected NRHA’s offer was NRHA’s refusal to compensate Andrews for the going business, despite the fact that it could not be relocated. In 2003, the Authority passed a resolution to condemn the property, fifteen years after the adoption of NRHA’s conservation plan.
In 2004, Waldo & Lyle challenged the right of NRHA to condemn C and C Real Estate’s property, even though there had been no cases since 1956 in which a housing authority in Virginia had been denied the right to take private property. After one and a half years of legal battles and circuit court hearings, Norfolk Circuit Court Judge John Morrison held that the NRHA was not authorized to condemn, as NRHA had not given C and C Real Estate the required one-year notice to correct blight.
NRHA appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of Virginia where the court affirmed the circuit court’s holdings: the language of the NRHA’s plan was overbroad and, therefore, did not allow for acquisition of C and C Real Estate’s property. The Court held that NRHA had a duty to provide C and C Real Estate with notice and an opportunity to correct any existing deficiencies prior to initiating any condemnation proceedings due to blight. As no such notice had been given, NRHA was not authorized to condemn C and C Real Estate’s property.
The Supreme Court of Virginia’s decision invalidated portions of an industrial conservation plan that had been in existence for nearly twenty years. For the first time in fifty years, the Court denied a housing authority the right to take property designated in a housing authority plan.
The story should conclude here, but it does not. Under Virginia law C and C, after defeating the effort to take their property, was entitled to recover the attorneys fees it incurred in defending its property and business. The NHRA disagreed with the law. In a succession of hearings throughout the fall of 2006 the NHRA attempted to deny C and C the lawful reimbursement of its attorneys fees. In February of 2007 the Circuit Court of Norfolk awarded C and C reimbursement of its attorneys fees.
NHRA has appealed this award to the Virginia Supreme Court. As of this writing the Court has not yet agreed to hear this appeal.
8. Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority v. Claytor
The Claytor family owned an entire city block in Roanoke. In 1976, the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority adopted a redevelopment plan and designated the entire block that the Claytors owned for condemnation. The Redevelopment Authority even went so far as to negotiate an option to sell the Claytor property to someone else.
When the redevelopment plan expired in 2001, 25 years after it was adopted, the Claytors sued the Redevelopment and Housing Authority, and the judge ruled that the Housing Authority was required to pay just compensation for placing the Claytor property under the cloud of condemnation for 25 years. The Housing Authority eventually paid the Claytors a judgment of $281,590, plus interest in the amount of $71, 661.70.
9. Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) v. Burris
In 1999, the Virginia Department of Transportation came to Mr. Burris and offered to buy his 16 acres of wetlands in Suffolk for $42,000. A new road ran across a very small portion of his land. Mr. Burris wondered why VDOT was paying $42,000 for all of his property. Mr. Burris, with the help of his lawyers, found out that VDOT needed his wetlands because it had destroyed wetlands constructing its new road and the law required VDOT to replace the destroyed wetlands as wetlands mitigation. VDOT had not told Mr. Burris his wetlands were very valuable. Through a trial, Mr. Burris was awarded $531,000 for his wetlands. VDOT tried to deprive Mr. Burris of $489,000 that the Constitution guaranteed him.
