Lawson v. State ex rel. Secretary of the Department of Transportation
2014 Del. LEXIS 194
| Del. | 2014Background
- DelDOT sought to condemn about 1.51 acres of the Lawsons’ 10-acre Middletown property for a storm water pond, with a plan to reroute a driveway for possible commercial use.
- In 2010 DelDOT appraisal valued the fee at $130,000, assuming post-taking commercial use; pre-taking value was $550,000, with this assumption driving the calculation.
- DelDOT offered $133,100 in Sept. 2011; Lawsons advised the plan would not support commercial development after relocation of the driveway.
- Condemnation filed Jan. 18, 2012; possession and protective orders granted in May 2012; immediate entry ordered in May 2012; this Court stayed those orders on appeal.
- This Court later reversed and remanded to dismiss the condemnation action without prejudice because DelDOT’s appraisal relied on an improper post-taking use, violating the Real Property Acquisition Act; the dismissal was without prejudice to a future, proper condemnation proceeding.
- Lawsons moved in Sept. 2013 for reimbursement of litigation expenses under 29 Del. C. § 9503 and for costs; Superior Court denied, ruling § 9503 not triggered and no bad-faith finding; this Court reverses in part, remands for determination of litigation expenses and costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| whether § 9503 requires reimbursement when final judgment is that property cannot be acquired in that proceeding | Lawsons contend final judgment here triggers §9503 | DelDOT argues no final judgment allowing acquisition in this proceeding | Yes; §9503 requires reimbursement in this proceeding |
| whether the bad faith exception to the American Rule applies | Lawsons claim DelDOT acted in subjective bad faith | DelDOT argues no subjective bad faith shown | No; bad-faith exception not established based on record |
| whether costs should be awarded under statutory cost provisions | Lawsons seek costs under §§5101, 5104 (and §6111 for condemnation) | Court did not address costs; need explicit ruling | Remand to determine costs under §6111; była explicit ruling necessary |
Key Cases Cited
- Colonial Sch. Bd. v. Colonial Affiliate, NCCEA/DSEA/NEA, 449 A.2d 243 (Del.1982) (strict construction of derogations from the common law)
- Turnbull v. Fink, 668 A.2d 1370 (Del.1995) (explains governing costs in civil actions)
- Versata Enterprises, Inc. v. Selectica, Inc., 5 A.3d 586 (Del.2010) (bad-faith conduct considerations in contractual disputes)
- Smith v. Guest, 16 A.3d 920 (Del.2011) (standard for abuse of discretion and statutory interpretation)
- Lawson v. State ex rel. Sec’y of the Dep't of Transp., 72 A.3d 84 (Del.2013) (prior opinion on approval/violation of the Act guiding this decision)