Duk Hea Oh v. National Capital Revitalization Corp.
2010 D.C. App. LEXIS 667
| D.C. | 2010Background
- Council authorized NCRC to condemn Skyland property; taking pursued at Skyland for redevelopment purposes.
- NCRC filed condemnation against Oh’s property (Beauty World) on July 8, 2005; Oh owned the property since 1990 with her late husband.
- NCRC deposited $160,000 into court registry on November 18, 2005 as just compensation.
- Oh asserted several affirmative defenses, including a pretext taking defense, which the trial court struck.
- Trial court held title vested in NCRC on November 18, 2005 and granted immediate possession; Oh was ordered to vacate by Sept. 1, 2010 and rent to be paid.
- Jury fixed just compensation at $160,000; trial court confirmed the award; Oh appealed and consolidated with an earlier interlocutory order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the pretext defense properly struck as insufficient? | Oh argues pretext defense should survive to allow discovery. | NCRC contends pretext defense is conclusory and legally insufficient. | Yes; pretext defense properly struck. |
| Whether taking date and possession order were correct | Oh disputes quick-take validity and title transfer date. | Statute 16-1314(b) vests title when declaration and deposit occur; November 18, 2005 proper. | Correct; title vested on November 18, 2005. |
| Whether the trial court erred in evidentiary rulings excluding post-taking comparables and settlement prices | Oh argues settlement and post-taking sales should be admitted. | Evidentiary exclusions were proper due to prejudice and confusion; Nash/Hannan considerations. | Exclusions justified; no error. |
| Whether the jury award of $160,000 was properly confirmed | Oh contends the award was not justified by evidence. | The award fell within the range of expert testimony. | affirmed; jury award within permissible range. |
| Whether rent award and laches issues were properly handled | Oh challenges rent and argues laches bars claims. | Statutory authority to award rent; laches not shown to prejudice owner. | Rent properly awarded; laches not established. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (U.S. 2005) (economic development as public purpose; cannot be pretextual for private benefit)
- Franco v. National Capital Revitalization Comm'n (Franco I), 930 A.2d 160 (D.C.2007) (pretext defense framework in Skyland eminent domain)
- Franco v. District of Columbia, 3 A.3d 300 (D.C.2010) (subsequent ruling on related issues in Skyland project)
- Hannan v. United States, 131 F.2d 441 (D.C.Cir.1942) (comparable sale evidence—prejudice/coercion considerations)
- Nash v. District of Columbia Redevelopment Land Agency, 395 F.2d 571 (D.C.Cir.1967) (condemnation settlements and admissibility of sale prices)
- Kirby Forest Indus. v. United States, 467 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1984) (expedited condemnation and deposit requirements; general principle)