{
  "id": 8521400,
  "name": "CITY OF RALEIGH v. LEON M. HOLLINGSWORTH, ROSE S. HOLLINGSWORTH, ROBINSON O. EVERETTE, LINDA M. EVERETTE, THE COUNTY OF WAKE",
  "name_abbreviation": "City of Raleigh v. Hollingsworth",
  "decision_date": "1989-11-07",
  "docket_number": "No. 8910SC82",
  "first_page": "260",
  "last_page": "263",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "96 N.C. App. 260"
    }
  ],
  "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": "338 S.E.2d 794",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1986,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "798"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "79 N.C. App. 103",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8519505
      ],
      "year": 1986,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "108"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/79/0103-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 317,
    "char_count": 5738,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.757,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.2269389344706595e-07,
      "percentile": 0.778446156513372
    },
    "sha256": "bebcf49d231d5da2af9be7924730847c891bb67563d117d20369002254567e5c",
    "simhash": "1:9b1ef5277844bfa0",
    "word_count": 918
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:28:35.242103+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges ARNOLD and COZORT concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "CITY OF RALEIGH v. LEON M. HOLLINGSWORTH, ROSE S. HOLLINGSWORTH, ROBINSON O. EVERETTE, LINDA M. EVERETTE, THE COUNTY OF WAKE"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "BECTON, Judge.\nIn this condemnation action, defendants seek attorney fees for plaintiff\u2019s alleged taking of property not described in plaintiff\u2019s Complaint and Declaration of Taking. The trial judge found that defendants sought (and the jury awarded) compensation, in part, for an inverse condemnation of defendant\u2019s property. On that basis, the trial judge awarded defendants $3,500.00 in attorney fees. Plaintiff appeals, and we affirm.\nI\nPlaintiff, the City of Raleigh (the \u201cCity\u201d), is a municipal corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of this State. Defendants Leon M. Hollingsworth and Rose M. Hollingsworth are the owners, as tenants by the entirety, of a one-half undivided interest in real property located in the vicinity of Gorman Street and Sullivan Drive in Raleigh. Defendants Robinson O. Everette and Linda M. Everette own, as tenants by the entirety, a one-half undivided interest in the same property. The status of defendant County of Wake is not germane to this appeal.\nOn \u00cd2 May 1988, the City filed a Complaint, Declaration of Taking, and Notice of Deposit, declaring it to be \u201cnecessary and in the public interest to acquire by condemnation the real property interest described in Exhibit A . . . .\u201d Exhibit A is denominated \u201cDescription of Area Taken\u201d and delineates by metes and bounds the extent of the land claimed by the City. For the taking, the City sought to compensate defendants in the sum of $20,000.00.\nOn 22 December 1986, defendants filed an Answer and Counterclaim. They alleged that the City had taken, in addition to the property described in Exhibit A, an additional .047-acre parcel. On 22 January 1987, the City filed its Answer to the Counterclaim, denying defendants\u2019 allegation. Immediately prior to trial, however, the parties stipulated that the City had taken the parcel in fee.\nA trial on the issue of compensation was held during the week of 8 August 1988, and the jury awarded damages to defendants in the amount of $26,402.00. On 6 September 1988, the trial judge heard defendants\u2019 motion for attorney fees. Finding that the jury had awarded compensation in part for inverse condemnation, the judge awarded fees to defendants. The City appealed.\nII\nThe City contends that it complied with the statutory requirements for describing the nature and extent of the property it acquired from defendants. Therefore, it argues, no basis exists for the trial judge\u2019s awarding of attorney fees.\nN.C. Gen. Stat. Sec. 40A-51(a) (1984) provides that if a condemn- or takes property for which no complaint containing a declaration of taking has been filed, the landowner may initiate an action to seek compensation for that taking. Such an action is one for \u201cinverse condemnation.\u201d See City of Winston-Salem v. Ferrell, 79 N.C. App. 103, 108, 338 S.E.2d 794, 798 (1986). Under N.C. Gen. Stat. Sec. 40A-8(c) (1984), attorney fees may be assessed against a condemnor \u201c[i]f an action is brought against a condemnor under . . . [Section] 40A-51 seeking compensation for the taking of any interest in property by the condemnor and judgment is for the owner . . . .\u201d Our review of the record satisfies us that the judge\u2019s finding that defendants sought and the jury awarded damages for inverse condemnation is correct.\nThe description in Exhibit A does not encompass the .047-acre parcel, and the City denied in its Answer to defendant\u2019s Counterclaim that it had taken this parcel. We reject, therefore, the City\u2019s contention that its Complaint and Declaration of Taking included this area within the condemned property. Moreover, the compensation awarded defendants by the jury, some $6,000.00 greater than the sum offered by the City, must have been based, in part, upon the City\u2019s taking of that parcel.\nThe City argues, however, that because defendants dismissed their Counterclaim for inverse condemnation prior to trial, attorney fees could not be awarded them under Section 40A-8(c). We disagree. Defendants dismissed the Counterclaim in consequence of a stipulation entered into between the parties immediately before trial began. The record indicates that the stipulation, in effect, was the City\u2019s concession that it had taken the parcel in fee, as alleged by defendants. We hold that it is consistent with Section 40A-8(c) to award attorney fees when, as in this case, a landowner\u2019s counterclaim is the impetus behind the condemnor\u2019s concession that it took land not described in the complaint and declaration of taking, and when a verdict demonstrates that the jury awarded compensation for that taking. Therefore, we overrule the City\u2019s assignments of error.\nIll\nFor the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the trial court awarding attorney fees to defendants is\nAffirmed. \u2022\nJudges ARNOLD and COZORT concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "BECTON, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Deputy City Attorney Francis P. Rasberry, Jr., for plaintiff-appellant.",
      "Nichols, Miller & Sigmon, P.A., by M. Jackson Nichols and R. Bradley Miller, for defendant-appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "CITY OF RALEIGH v. LEON M. HOLLINGSWORTH, ROSE S. HOLLINGSWORTH, ROBINSON O. EVERETTE, LINDA M. EVERETTE, THE COUNTY OF WAKE\nNo. 8910SC82\n(Filed 7 November 1989)\nEminent Domain \u00a7 13 (NCI3d); Attorneys at Law \u00a7 7.3 (NCI3d) \u2014 inverse condemnation \u2014right to attorney fees\nIt is consistent with N.C.G.S. \u00a7 40A-8(c) to award attorney fees when, as in this case, a landowner\u2019s counterclaim is the impetus behind the condemnor\u2019s concession that it took land not described in the complaint and declaration of taking, and when a verdict demonstrates that the jury awarded compensation for that taking.\nAm Jur 2d, Eminent Domain \u00a7\u00a7 465, 476.\nAPPEAL by plaintiff from order entered 29 September 1988 in WAKE County Superior Court by Judge Coy E. Brewer, Jr. Heard in the Court of Appeals 12 September 1989.\nDeputy City Attorney Francis P. Rasberry, Jr., for plaintiff-appellant.\nNichols, Miller & Sigmon, P.A., by M. Jackson Nichols and R. Bradley Miller, for defendant-appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0260-01",
  "first_page_order": 292,
  "last_page_order": 295
}
