North Carolina Map Act Temporary Takings – Rental Value Not the Metric?!

When reading our colleague Robert Thomas’ excellent post on a recent Nort Carolina Map Act case, it sounded vaguely familiar.

Recollection refreshed!

Nine years ago(!), I blogged about the case that found the recording of a right-of-way map amounted to a taking… entitling owner to just compensation.

In the Kirby v. NCDOT Case, the Supreme Court held that “the trial court erred when it concluded Plaintiffs’ claims for inverse condemnation were not yet ripe based on its determination that Plaintiffs did not suffer a taking at the time NCDOT filed the transportation corridor maps for the Western and Eastern Loops.”

I couldn’t write it better than Robert Thomas, so I’m going to suggest that you read his posting.  Sneak preview:

In Kirby, the North Carolina Supreme Court held that the restrictions the Act imposed amounted to a taking. In response, the N.C. legislature rescinded the Map Act.

The Matas own property that was burdened by the Map Act restrictions from the time of the adoption of the Act until it was repealed (August 1996 to July 2016). The question in the case is calculation of the amount of just compensation that NCDOT must provide.

First, the court rejected NCDOT’s argument that the taking here was permanent and not temporary. True, Kirby held that the Map Act restricted owners’ uses “for an unlimited period of time,” but that was before the lege repealed the statute. Slip op. at 9-10. As the court noted:

The Map Act restrictions dates in effect were properly defined from DOT’s recording the highway corridors on 6 August 1996 until the corridors were rescinded as of 11 July 2016. The taking was no longer “indefinite.” The trial court correctly defined and concluded the dates above are the operative dates of Plaintiffs’ alleged temporary taking.

Slip op. at 10.

Will be interesting to see if there are any subsequent cases detailing the valuation analysis.

First weekend in August…dog days of summer are upon us.