Time Limits for Private Property Claims: Three Takeaways from a Recent Court Decision
Deadlines are important in all areas of life. In the legal context, the required timeframe for a party to act is known as the statute of limitations. For Land Use claims, a failure to act before the end of the statute of limitations could mean never recovering for the loss or damage to private property (or being subject to a significant judgment affecting personal assets).
The United States Constitution mandates that property owners receive just compensation—or payment—for any government taking for a public use, also known as the doctrine of eminent domain. State Constitutions—such as Virginia’s—further expand this right to detail recovery for “damaging” relating to the government’s acts or omissions. An inverse condemnation claim arises when a property owner—rather than the government—initiates the eminent domain process.
A recent Virginia Court of Appeals decision, Morgan v. City of Norfolk, provides key insight into when a claim for inverse condemnation must be filed—as well as what might be compensable as part of an inverse claim. In Morgan, the property owner alleged that the government’s action near her property resulted in damage and therefore constituted a taking under Article I, Section 11 of the Constitution of Virginia. The trial Court disregarded a significant portion of her claim as time-barred, while also providing an analysis of what damages were actually compensable. I recommend that property owners and government officials consider these three takeaways based on the Court’s opinion:
The statute of limitations for inverse condemnation claims is three years—however, when the “clock” starts to accrue is a fact-specific inquiry.
In Morgan, the property owner alleged that she was entitled to just compensation for damages that occurred more than three years before her date of filing because the damage was continuous, also known as the “stabilization doctrine.” The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s opinion that the stabilization doctrine did not apply because the applicable government project/construction was broken up into phases and therefore any affected damage was clearly delineated. This signals that no party should treat the three-year statute of limitations as a “given”—as the actual start can vary.
Alleging damage to the foundation of a structure alone is insufficient without proving causation.
Ms. Morgan alleged that significant cracks in her home’s foundation were caused by construction vibrations related to the government’s project. She also alleged that the kitchen counter was not level and “receding.” The Court found that Ms. Morgan failed to establish a link between the government’s work and the cracks and other foundation issues (much of which existed before construction began). I recommend that parties have clear evidence of the property in the “before” in order to determine causation.
The proof of impact must correlate with how much just compensation is paid.
In Morgan, the property owner’s appraiser alleged that the entirety of her property was damaged for the duration of the government’s project; however, only advanced calculation for damage to a 15 square foot area. The Court opined that there was not sufficient evidence for a jury to hear testimony on the totality of the site. I recommend that any appraisal analysis be vetted and synthesized before filing a claim to ensure consistency.
Theodora Stringham focuses her practice on bringing solutions-oriented representation and zealous advocacy to complex issues impacting individuals, organizations, and businesses. Ms. Stringham seeks to understand clients’ concerns and provide thorough and strategic options aimed at achieving their goals. She has been recognized for her work in the Real Estate, Labor and Employment, and Commercial Litigation practice areas, providing counseling and litigation support for a wide variety of concerns.