Any person whose land or compensable interest therein has been taken by an intentional or unintentional act or omission of the Department of Transportation and no complaint and declaration of taking has been filed by said Department of Transportation may, within 24 months of the date of the taking of the affected property or interest therein or the completion of the project involving the taking, whichever shall occur later, file a complaint in the superior court setting forth the names and places of residence of the parties, so far as the same can by reasonable diligence be ascertained, who own or have, or claim to own or have estates or interests in the said real estate and if any such persons are under a legal disability, it must be so stated, together with a statement as to any encumbrances on said real estate; said complaint shall further allege with particularity the facts which constitute said taking together with the dates that they allegedly occurred; said complaint shall describe the property allegedly owned by said parties and shall describe the area and interests allegedly taken. Upon the filing of said complaint summons shall issue and together with a copy of said complaint be served on the Department of Transportation as provided by G.S. 1A-1, Rule 4(j)(4). The allegations of said complaint shall be deemed denied; however, the Department of Transportation within 60 days of service of summons and complaint may file answer thereto, and if said taking is admitted by the Department of Transportation, it shall, at the time of filing answer, deposit with the court the estimated amount of compensation for said taking and notice of said deposit shall be given to said owner. Said owner may apply for disbursement of said deposit and disbursement shall be made in accordance with the applicable provisions of G.S. 136-105 of this Chapter. If a taking is admitted, the Department of Transportation shall, within 90 days of the filing of the answer to the complaint, file a map or plat of the land taken. The procedure hereinbefore set out shall be followed for the purpose of determining all matters raised by the pleadings and the determination of just compensation.
The plaintiff at the time of filing of the complaint shall record a memorandum of action with the register of deeds in all counties in which the land involved therein is located, said memorandum to be recorded among the land records of said county. The memorandum of action shall contain
(1) The names of those persons who the plaintiff is informed and believes may have or claim to have an interest in said lands and who are parties to said action;
(2) A description of the entire tract or tracts affected by the alleged taking sufficient for the identification thereof;
(3) A statement of the estate or interest in said land allegedly taken for public use; and
(4) The date on which plaintiff alleges the taking occurred, the date on which said action was instituted, the county in which it was instituted, and such other reference thereto as may be necessary for the identification of said action. (1959, c. 1025, s. 2; 1961, c. 1084, s. 6; 1963, c. 1156, s. 8; 1965, c. 514, ss. 1, 1 1/2; 1971, c. 1195; 1973, c. 507, s. 5; 1977, c. 464, ss. 7.1, 29; 1985, c. 182.)
Notes of Decisions
Beroth Oil Co. v. N.C. Dep't of Transp., 808 S.E.2d 488 (N.C. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 24× “N.C. Gen. Stat. § 136-111 (2015). In its pleadings filed prior to July 15, 2015, NCDOT consistently admitted that it had filed transportation corridor maps for the Northern Beltway, that the filing of the maps placed restrictions upon the properties located within the corridor’s…”
Beroth Oil Co. v. North Carolina Dep't of Transp., 757 S.E.2d 466 (N.C. 2014).
· cites it 11× “On 16 September 2010, plaintiffs filed a complaint and declaratory judgment action in Superior Court, Forsyth County, asserting five “claim[s] for relief’: (1) inverse condemnation pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 136-111; (2) an unlawful taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the…”
North Carolina Dep't of Transp. v. Cromartie, 716 S.E.2d 361 (N.C. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 21× “§ 136-111 , the statute permitting the State to be sued for inverse condemnation, states in relevant part: Any person whose land or compensable interest therein has been taken by an intentional act or omission of the Department of Transportation and no complaint and declaration…”
Pate v. N.C. Dep't of Transp., 626 S.E.2d 661 (N.C. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 12× “C.R.App. P. 10(a) ("[T]he scope of review on appeal is confined to a consideration of those assignments of error set out in the record on appeal in accordance with this Rule 10.”
Beroth Oil Co. v. North Carolina Dep't of Transp., 725 S.E.2d 651 (N.C. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 10× “” Based on the foregoing allegations, Plaintiffs’ complaint set forth the following claims for relief against NCDOT: inverse condemnation pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 136-111 (2011) (“Claim 1”); a taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution…”
Adams Outdoor Advert. of Charlotte v. North Carolina Dep't of Transp., 434 S.E.2d 666 (N.C. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 11× “Plaintiff’s contention is that the trial court erred in dismissing its complaint because, according to plaintiff, the complaint stated a cause of action for inverse condemnation under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, Article I, Section 19 of…”
Taylor v. North Carolina Dep't of Transp., 357 S.E.2d 439 (N.C. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 11× “§ 136-108, and confined his argument to the question whether plaintiffs claim is barred by either the twenty-four month statute of limitations contained in G.S. § 136-111 or by the doctrine of laches.”
S. Furniture Co. of Conover, Inc. v. Dep't of Transp., 468 S.E.2d 523 (N.C. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 9× “As defenses, defendant asserted sovereign immunity and that plaintiff’s action is barred by the statute of limitations provided in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 136-111 . Defendant made a motion that the plaintiff’s *115 complaint be dismissed pursuant to N.”
Nat'l Advert. Co. v. North Carolina Dep't of Transp., 478 S.E.2d 248 (N.C. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 6× “G.S. § 136-111 (1993). We find that plaintiff is not entitled to recover under this statute because it has failed to show that it had an interest in land that was taken.”
Frazier v. North Carolina Cent. Univ., ex rel. Univ. of North Carolina, 779 S.E.2d 515 (N.C. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 6× “Citing Middlesex , DOT argued that the plaintiff's suit was barred by sovereign immunity because it had an administrative remedy available through section 136-111 of our General Statutes, which provides for special proceedings for inverse condemnation.”
Long v. City of Charlotte, 293 S.E.2d 101 (N.C. 1982).
· cites it 2× “(2) The City cross-assigned as error the trial court’s denial of its motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ Count I (Inverse Condemnation) *209 for failure to comply with the provisions of Chapter 136 of the General Statutes (G.S. § 136-111). Article 9 of Chapter 136 of the General…”
Wilcox v. North Carolina State High. Comm'n, 181 S.E.2d 435 (N.C. 1971).
· cites it 7× “In pertinent part of G.S. 136-111 provides: “Any person whose land or compensable interest therein has been taken by an intentional or unintentional act or omission of the Highway Commission and no complaint and declaration of taking has been filed by said Highway Commission…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.