Lawson v. State
72 A.3d 84
| Del. | 2013Background
- Jack and Mary Ann Lawson own ~10 acres zoned CR (regional commercial) but currently used as a single-family residence; professional engineers and the Lawsons contended a relocated driveway would not meet DelDOT commercial entrance requirements.
- DelDOT sought to acquire 1.51 acres in fee plus a temporary easement for a stormwater pond and to relocate the Lawsons’ driveway to a 12-foot berm across the pond, which DelDOT planned to build.
- DelDOT obtained an appraisal valuing the taking at $133,080 (before-taking value $550,000; remainder valued assuming continued commercial highest-and-best-use at $420,000) and offered $133,100; the Lawsons objected that the appraisal failed to consider that the taking would effectively preclude commercial access to the remainder.
- Negotiations stalled after the Lawsons’ representatives and lawyer raised the access/entrance issue; DelDOT filed condemnation and deposited $133,100 with the Superior Court; the Lawsons moved to dismiss for RPAA noncompliance.
- The Superior Court found DelDOT made a good-faith offer supported by a qualified appraisal and denied the Lawsons’ motion; on interlocutory appeal the Delaware Supreme Court reviewed de novo whether DelDOT complied with the Real Property Acquisition Act (RPAA), specifically §9505(3).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Lawson) | Defendant's Argument (DelDOT) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DelDOT complied with RPAA §9505(3) by making an initial offer reasonably believed to be just compensation | Appraisal was fundamentally flawed because it assumed the remainder retained commercial highest-and-best-use despite DelDOT’s plan that would effectively deny a commercial entrance | Offer was supported by a qualified appraiser and thus was a good-faith, reasonable estimate of just compensation | Court held DelDOT violated §9505(3); appraisal failed to account for post-taking loss of commercial access, so offer was not reasonably believed to be just compensation |
| Whether the appraisal’s failure to analyze the post-taking access/entrance limitation was material to negotiations | Lawsons argued the entrance limitation materially diminished value and frustrated negotiation; they raised the issue early and provided engineers’ opinions | DelDOT relied on its appraisal and argued negotiations were adequate and appraisal controlled | Court found the record showed the appraisal’s assumptions were facially flawed, negotiations were frustrated, and the trial judge’s finding that nothing disputed the appraisal was clearly erroneous |
| Whether DelDOT can be excused for noncompliance (good faith or futility) | Noncompliance not excused because DelDOT persisted in relying on the flawed appraisal and did not show futility or adequate good-faith cure | DelDOT argued good-faith reliance on a qualified appraisal justified proceeding | Court rejected excuse; noncompliance not shown to be harmless or futile to cure |
| Remedy for RPAA noncompliance | Dismissal without prejudice to allow proper appraisal/negotiation | DelDOT sought to continue condemnation | Court reversed Superior Court, vacated orders, and remanded with instruction to dismiss condemnation without prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Key Props. Grp., LLC v. City of Milford, 995 A.2d 147 (Del. 2010) (RPAA guidelines are directory; noncompliance may be excused for good faith or futility)
- City of Dover v. Cartanza, 541 A.2d 580 (Del. Super. 1988) (explains RPAA noncompliance is a defense and outlines valid excuses and remedy of dismissal without prejudice)
- Wilm. Parking Auth. v. 277 W. 8th St., 521 A.2d 227 (Del. 1986) (standards for reviewing agency compliance and related procedural principles)