{ "id": 4165027, "name": "ALLEN CHARLES DeHART and LUEARTTIE DeHART, Plaintiffs v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Defendant", "name_abbreviation": "DeHart v. North Carolina Department of Transportation", "decision_date": "2009-02-17", "docket_number": "No. COA08-216", "first_page": "417", "last_page": "423", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "195 N.C. App. 417" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.", "id": 14983, "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "619 S.E.2d 495", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12633954, 12633955 ], "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "496" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/619/0495-01", "/se2d/619/0495-02" ] }, { "cite": "304 S.E.2d 164", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 4, "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "176" }, { "page": "169" }, { "page": "175" }, { "page": "176", "parenthetical": "internal citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "308 N.C. 603", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4710350 ], "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "621" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/308/0603-01" ] }, { "cite": "351 S.E.2d 742", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1987, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "318 N.C. 692", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4735043, 4738989, 4737172, 4737238, 4734968 ], "year": 1987, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/318/0692-05", "/nc/318/0692-02", "/nc/318/0692-01", "/nc/318/0692-04", "/nc/318/0692-03" ] }, { "cite": "347 S.E.2d 868", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "869" }, { "page": "869" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "82 N.C. App. 752", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8359990 ], "year": 1986, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/82/0752-01" ] }, { "cite": "181 S.E.2d 466", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1971, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "468", "parenthetical": "quoting 26 Am. Jur. 2d Eminent Domain \u00a7 157 (1966)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "279 N.C. 188", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8566338 ], "year": 1971, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "190-91", "parenthetical": "quoting 26 Am. Jur. 2d Eminent Domain \u00a7 157 (1966)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/279/0188-01" ] }, { "cite": "360 N.C. 46", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 3786529 ], "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "48" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/360/0046-01" ] }, { "cite": "521 S.E.2d 707", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 9, "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "709-10" }, { "page": "709" }, { "page": "710" }, { "page": "709" }, { "page": "710" }, { "page": "710" }, { "page": "709" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "351 N.C. 172", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 1155764 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "175-76" }, { "page": "176" }, { "page": "175" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/351/0172-01" ] }, { "cite": "155 S.E.2d 772", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 1967, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "783" }, { "page": "784" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "271 N.C. 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8562278 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1967, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "14" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/271/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "555 S.E.2d 634", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "638-39", "parenthetical": "holding that plaintiff's voluntary dismissal of its only remaining claim after the trial court granted summary judgment to defendant on plaintiff's other claims had the effect of making the court's partial summary judgment order an appealable final order" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "147 N.C. App. 362", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 9379646 ], "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "367-68", "parenthetical": "holding that plaintiff's voluntary dismissal of its only remaining claim after the trial court granted summary judgment to defendant on plaintiff's other claims had the effect of making the court's partial summary judgment order an appealable final order" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/147/0362-01" ] }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 136-108", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "weight": 3, "year": 2007, "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 619, "char_count": 13740, "ocr_confidence": 0.721, "pagerank": { "raw": 7.578924433977877e-08, "percentile": 0.4492458826750131 }, "sha256": "ea63ee8646c58d7acba72cbc29a65792c1d2cc9ab9267970e6639d2dee0666f5", "simhash": "1:033295d0306e1dd4", "word_count": 2252 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:32:21.117771+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges STEELMAN and STEPHENS concur." ], "parties": [ "ALLEN CHARLES DeHART and LUEARTTIE DeHART, Plaintiffs v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Defendant" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "GEER, Judge.\nPlaintiffs Allen Charles DeHart and Luearttie DeHart appeal from the trial court\u2019s dismissal of their claim for inverse condemnation arising out of the failure of the North Carolina Department of Transportation (\u201cDOT\u201d) to grade their driveway at a slope of no more than- 10 percent after widening a highway running past plaintiffs\u2019 property. Because plaintiffs have not established that they were substantially deprived of the use of their property by DOT\u2019S actions, we affirm the trial court\u2019s order.\nFacts\nPlaintiffs own a tract of land in Graham County, North Carolina. In 1998, DOT condemned a portion of plaintiffs\u2019 property in order to widen North Carolina Highway 28. The parties reached a compromise settlement with, regard to DOT\u2019s taking that provided not only for the payment of $14,050.00 to plaintiffs, but also included an agreement by DOT to build a private drive across DOT\u2019S right of way that would connect with plaintiffs\u2019 driveway. The agreement specified that the driveway would be a \u201c16 ft. roadbed with a maximum grade of 10%.\u201d When DOT built the driveway, the grade ranged from 13 percent to 17 percent.\nPlaintiffs brought suit in Graham County Superior Court, alleging breach of contract and inverse condemnation based on DOT\u2019S failure to grade the driveway at 10 percent. On 31 January 2003, DOT moved to dismiss plaintiffs\u2019 claim for inverse condemnation. Judge Ronald K. Payne denied this motion on 13 May 2003. DOT then moved for a hearing pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 136-108 (2007) to determine \u201cwhether the Plaintiffs have had any interest or area of their property taken by the Defendant and/or whether the Plaintiffs have an inverse condemnation claim against the Defendant.\u201d On 7 September 2006, Judge Dennis J. Winner ruled that the failure of DOT to comply with its agreement to build the driveway at a grade of 10 percent or less was not a taking and dismissed plaintiffs\u2019 claim for inverse condemnation.\nPlaintiffs filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of their breach of contract claim on 6 September 2007 and filed a notice of appeal from Judge Winner\u2019s order on 26 September 2007. DOT has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal as untimely.\nDiscussion\nWe first address DOT\u2019S motion to dismiss. Rule 3(c)(1) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure requires that a party file his or her notice of appeal within 30 days after entry of judgment. The trial court filed its order dismissing plaintiffs\u2019 inverse condemnation claim on 7 September 2006. The order was interlocutory because plaintiffs\u2019 contract claim remained pending. Once plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the breach of contract claim on 6 September 2007, the trial court\u2019s order dismissing their inverse condemnation claim became a final order. See Combs & Assocs. v. Kennedy, 147 N.C. App. 362, 367-68, 555 S.E.2d 634, 638-39 (2001) (holding that plaintiff\u2019s voluntary dismissal of its only remaining claim after the trial court granted summary judgment to defendant on plaintiff\u2019s other claims had the effect of making the court\u2019s partial summary judgment order an appealable final order). Plaintiffs filed their notice of appeal on 26 September 2007, within 30 days after the date the trial court\u2019s dismissal order became final.\nDOT argues, however, that the holding in N. C. State Highway Common v. Nuckles, 271 N.C. 1, 155 S.E.2d 772 (1967), required plaintiffs to file their notice of appeal within 30 days of the trial court\u2019s ruling on 7 September 2006. In Nuckles, 271 N.C. at 14, 155 S.E.2d at 783, the Supreme Court held that a trial court\u2019s ruling on the issue of what land was taken during a condemnation proceeding is immediately appealable because it affects a landowner\u2019s substantial rights. The Court in that case then dismissed an appeal as untimely because the appellant waited to file notice of appeal until the trial court rendered a final judgment. Id. at 15, 155 S.E.2d at 784.\nThe Supreme Court, however, narrowed Nuckles in Dep\u2019t of Transp. v. Rowe, 351 N.C. 172, 175-76, 521 S.E.2d 707, 709-10 (1999). The Court specifically held: \u201c[W]e now limit [the holding in Nuckles] to questions of title and area taken.\u201d Id. at 176, 521 S.E.2d at 709. The Court observed that \u201c[a]lthough the parties to a condemnation hearing must resolve all issues other than damages at the N.C.G.S. \u00a7 136-108 hearing, that statute does not require the parties to appeal those issues before proceeding to the damages trial.\u201d Id., 521 S.E.2d at 710. The landowners in Rowe were \u201cthe undisputed owners of the land DOT [was] seeking to condemn,\u201d and the case presented no issue regarding \u201cwhat parcel of land [was] being taken or to whom that land belonged].\u201d Id., 521 S.E.2d at 709. Consequently, the landowners were not required to immediately appeal the trial court\u2019s ruling after the \u00a7 136-108 hearing, but rather could wait until a final judgment was entered. Id. at 177, 521 S.E.2d at 710. See also N.C. Dep\u2019t of Transp. v. Stagecoach Vill., 360 N.C. 46, 48, 619 S.E.2d 495, 496 (2005) (\u201cThe Court of Appeals correctly read our decisions in N.C. State Highway Comm\u2019n v. Nuckles and Rowe as holding interlocutory orders concerning title or area taken must be immediately appealed as \u2018vital preliminary issues\u2019 involving substantial rights adversely affected.\u201d (quoting Rowe, 351 N.C. at 176, 521 S.E.2d at 710)).\nIn this case, the order following the N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 136-108 hearing did not address a question of title or area taken. Plaintiffs are the undisputed owners of the property, and the parties agree regarding what area is in dispute. The sole question was whether there was any taking at all. Based on Rowe, plaintiffs were not required to immediately appeal the trial court\u2019s ruling that DOT\u2019S failure to build a driveway at a 10 percent grade was not a taking. We, therefore, deny DOT\u2019S motion to dismiss plaintiffs\u2019 appeal.\nTurning to the merits of plaintiffs\u2019 appeal, Rowe pointed out that \u201c[p]arties to a condemnation proceeding must resolve all issues other than damages at a hearing pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 136-108.\u201d 351 N.C. at 175, 521 S.E.2d at 709. N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 136-108 provides:\nAfter the filing of the plat, the judge, upon motion and 10 days\u2019 notice by either the Department of Transportation or the owner, shall, either in or out of term, hear and determine any and all issues raised by the pleadings other than the issue of damages, including, but not limited to, if controverted, questions of necessary and proper parties, title to the land, interest taken, and area taken.\n(Emphasis added.) Following the hearing in this case, Judge Winner concluded that \u201c[t]he failure of the Defendant to comply with its agreement to build the driveway at 10 percent or less is not a taking of property within the laws of the State of North Carolina\u201d and that \u201c[t]he Plaintiffs are not entitled therefore to proceed with respect to the remedy of an inverse condemnation.\u201d\nIn Ledford v. N.C. State Highway Comm\u2019n, 279 N.C. 188, 190-91, 181 S.E.2d 466, 468 (1971) (quoting 26 Am. Jur. 2d Eminent Domain \u00a7 157 (1966)), the Supreme Court held:\n\u201c \u2018Taking\u2019 under the power of eminent domain may be defined generally as entering upon private property for more than a momentary period and, under the warrant or color of legal authority, devoting it to a public use, or otherwise informally appropriating or injuriously affecting it in such a way as substantially to oust the owner and deprive him of all beneficial enjoyment thereof.\u201d\nThis Court applied this principle in Dep\u2019t of Transp. v. Higdon, 82 N.C. App. 752, 347 S.E.2d 868 (1986), appeal dismissed and disc. review denied, 318 N.C. 692, 351 S.E.2d 742 (1987).\nIn Higdon, DOT had condemned a portion of the defendants\u2019 property in order to widen a street. As part of the widening construction, DOT, without the defendants\u2019 permission, resloped and repaved a parking lot at the front of the defendants\u2019 property, making the area steeper, rendering the front parking lot useless, and requiring the defendants to build a retaining wall and add steps to the front of their building. Id at 753, 347 S.E.2d at 869. The defendants argued that this regrading of the front parking lot constituted an additional taking. This Court rejected the' defendants\u2019 contention, explaining, based on the definition in Ledford, that \u201c[i]n no way was this additional area devoted to a public use and defendants-were neither substantially ousted nor deprived of all beneficial enjoyment of the area in question by the mere regrading of the property.\u201d Id. at 754, 347 S.E.2d at 869.\nWe believe Higdon is materially indistinguishable from this case. As the trial court found, DOT built a driveway across its right of way that attached to plaintiffs\u2019 private driveway, but was steeper than the parties had agreed upon. As in Higdon, the area at issue \u2014 the driveway \u2014 was not devoted to public use, and plaintiffs in this case do not contend that they were ousted or deprived of beneficial enjoyment of their property.\nPlaintiffs argue nonetheless that a taking occurred under the reasoning of Lea Co. v. N.C. Bd. of Transp., 308 N.C. 603, 621, 304 S.E.2d 164, 176 (1983), because the value of their property decreased as a result of the steeper slope to their driveway. In Lea, the Court addressed \u201cwhether an easement for flooding was taken from the plaintiff by the defendant, a State agency.\u201d Id. at 607, 304 S.E.2d at 169. The State and the plaintiff in that case had entered into an agreement regarding the condemnation of a portion of the plaintiff\u2019s property in connection with highway improvements. Certain structures built for those improvements subsequently caused flooding of the plaintiff\u2019s property and were likely to lead to periodic future flooding.\nThe Supreme Court held that \u201c[i]n order to recover for a taking in the present case, the plaintiff must additionally show that the defendant\u2019s structures caused an actual permanent invasion of the plaintiff\u2019s land or a right appurtenant thereto.\u201d Id. at 618, 304 S.E.2d at 175. In concluding that the plaintiff had met its burden, the Court stated:\nIn the present case the evidence tended to show that the structures built and maintained by the defendant caused increased flooding and substantial injury to the plaintiff\u2019s relatively high density apartments in an urban area. The highway structures built and maintained by the defendant which were found to have directly caused the increased flooding were permanent in nature. In light of this evidence, the trial court did not err in concluding that the increased flooding directly resulting from the defendant\u2019s structures was a permanent invasion of the plaintiff\u2019s property and a taking by the State.\nId. at 620-21, 304 S.E.2d at 176 (internal citation omitted).\nThe Supreme Court\u2019s decision in Lea does not support plaintiffs\u2019 contention that a taking has occurred because the steeper grade of the drive \u201cresulted in Plaintiffs\u2019 remaining land being less valuable than it would have been had the reconstructed drive and its reconnection to Defendant\u2019s land been completed as agreed.\u201d While, in Lea, DOT\u2019s actions substantially impaired the value of the owner\u2019s land because they caused it to be flooded every time the area experienced a hard rain, plaintiffs in this case have only alleged that DOT\u2019s actions have not improved the value of their land to the degree they expected under the agreement.\nAccordingly, we hold Higdon controls the disposition of this appeal. Because plaintiffs failed to prove at trial and failed to argue on appeal that the increased slope of the new driveway substantially deprived them of the use of their land, as required in Higdon and Ledford, 'the trial court did not err in concluding that there was no taking. The trial court\u2019s dismissal of plaintiffs\u2019 claim for inverse condemnation is, therefore, affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nJudges STEELMAN and STEPHENS concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "GEER, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Moody & Brigham, PLLC, by Fred II. Moody, Jr. and Justin B. Greene, for plaintiff s-appellants.", "Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General David P. Brenskelle, for defendant-appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "ALLEN CHARLES DeHART and LUEARTTIE DeHART, Plaintiffs v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Defendant\nNo. COA08-216\n(Filed 17 February 2009)\n1. Appeal and Error; Eminent Domain\u2014 inverse condemnation \u2014 dismissal order \u2014 voluntary dismissal of remaining claim \u2014 timeliness of notice of appeal\nPlaintiff landowners who brought breach of contract and inverse condemnation claims against the DOT were not required to immediately appeal the trial court\u2019s dismissal of their inverse condemnation claim but could wait until they thereafter voluntarily dismissed their breach of contract claim, at which time the order dismissing their inverse condemnation claim became a final order. Therefore, plaintiffs\u2019 notice of appeal filed within 30 days after the trial court\u2019s dismissal order became final was timely.\n2. Eminent Domain\u2014 inverse condemnation \u2014 slope of private driveway \u2014 failure to show deprivation of use of property\nThe trial court did not err by dismissing plaintiffs\u2019 claim for inverse condemnation arising out of the failure of defendant DOT to grade their driveway at the slope of no more than ten percent as required by a compromise settlement of a condemnation action because there was no taking where plaintiffs only alleged that DOT\u2019S actions have not improved the value of their land to the degree they expected under the agreement; and plaintiffs have not established that the increased slope of the new driveway substantially deprived them of the use of their property.\nAppeal by plaintiffs from order entered 7 September 2006 by Judge Dennis J. Winner in Graham County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 28 August 2008.\nMoody & Brigham, PLLC, by Fred II. Moody, Jr. and Justin B. Greene, for plaintiff s-appellants.\nAttorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General David P. Brenskelle, for defendant-appellee." }, "file_name": "0417-01", "first_page_order": 449, "last_page_order": 455 }