(a) If property has been taken by an act or omission of a condemnor listed in G.S. 40A-3(b) or (c) and no complaint containing a declaration of taking has been filed the owner of the property, may initiate an action to seek compensation for the taking. The action may be initiated within 24 months of the date of the taking of the affected property or the completion of the project involving the taking, whichever shall occur later. The complaint shall be filed in the superior court and shall contain the following: the names and places of residence of all persons who are, or claim to be, owners of the property, so far as the same can by reasonable diligence be ascertained; if any persons are under a legal disability, it must be so stated; a statement as to any encumbrances on the property; the particular facts which constitute the taking together with the dates that they allegedly occurred, and; a description of the property taken. Upon the filing of said complaint summons shall issue and together with a copy of the complaint be served on the condemnor. The allegations of said complaint shall be deemed denied; however, the condemnor within 60 days of service summons and complaint may file answer thereto. If the taking is admitted by the condemnor, it shall, at the time of filing the answer, deposit with the court the estimated amount of compensation for the taking. Notice of the deposit shall be given to the owner. The owner may apply for disbursement of the deposit and disbursement shall be made in accordance with the applicable provisions of G.S. 40A-44. If a taking is admitted, the condemnor shall, within 90 days of the filing of the answer to the complaint, file a map or plat of the property taken. The procedure hereinbefore set out in this Article and in Article 4 shall be followed for the purpose of determining all matters raised by the pleadings and the determination of just compensation.
(b) The owner 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 property involved is located. The memorandum is to be recorded among the land records of the county. The memorandum of action shall contain:
(1) The names of those persons who the owner is informed and believes to be or claim to be owners of the property;
(2) A description of the entire tract or tracts affected by the alleged taking sufficient for the identification thereof;
(3) A statement of the property allegedly taken; and
(4) The date on which owner 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.
(c) Nothing in this section shall in any manner affect an owner's common-law right to bring an action in tort for damage to his property. (1981, c. 919, s. 1.)
Notes of Decisions
Wilkie v. City of Boiling Spring Lakes (2018)
nc · cites it 126×
“Wilkie are entitled to seek compensation pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 40A-51 based upon the extended flooding of their property as the result of actions taken by defendant City of Boiling Spring Lakes for an allegedly private purpose.”
CAPE FEAR PUBLIC UTILITY AUTHORITY v. Costa (2010)
ncctapp · cites it 40×
“Defendant's counterclaim is thus governed by N.C. Gen.Stat. § 40A-51, which deals with situations in which "property has been taken by an act or omission of a condemnor listed in G.”
Robertson v. City of High Point (1998)
ncctapp · cites it 24×
“Plaintiffs’ complaint alleges: (1) inverse condemnation pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 40A-51 (1984); (2) nuisance; (3) negligence; (4) trespass; and (6) infringement of constitutional rights based on freedom of worship.”
Howell v. City of Lumberton (2001)
ncctapp · cites it 35×
“Plaintiff considered the offer inadequate and refused to sign the release. I. Defendant first assigns error to the trial court’s failure to grant defendant’s motion for involuntary dismissal during the trial.”
Peach v. City of High Point (2009)
ncctapp · cites it 32×
“The plaintiffs in Ward did not bring an inverse condemnation claim and that case was decided prior to the enactment of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 40A-51, which provides a statutory “inverse condemnation remedy.”
Finch v. City of Durham (1989)
nc · cites it 12×
“Plaintiffs stated six claims: (1) that the zoning ordinance be invalidated as arbitrary, capricious, discriminatory and unreasonable; (2) that the zoning ordinance be invalidated as a "taking" under the state and federal Constitutions; (3) that the City of Durham be found liable…”
LeTendre v. Currituck Cty. (2018)
ncctapp · cites it 12×
“Laches Plaintiff's eighth cause of action is that "Currituck County's [a]ttempts to [e]nforce Section 10.”
Guilford County Department of Emergency Services v. Seaboard Chemical Corp. (1994)
ncctapp · cites it 9×
“On 18 August 1989, Seaboard filed an answer to plaintiffs’ complaint and asserted the defenses of preemption, estoppel, preexisting use of property, and waiver and asserted compulsory counterclaims for (1) taking of private property for public use without just compensation; (2)…”
Wilkie v. City of Boiling Spring Lakes (2016)
ncctapp · cites it 9×
“-For the public use or benefit, the governing body of each municipality or county shall possess the power of eminent domain and may acquire by purchase, gift or condemnation any property, either inside or outside its boundaries, for the following purposes.”
McAdoo v. City of Greensboro (1988)
ncctapp · cites it 6×
“Summary judgment for defendant was appropriate not because of the statute of limitations but because defendant as a city had the power of eminent domain, and such power insulates it from trespass actions regardless of whether compensation was paid or proper procedures were used.”
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 40A-51(a) — 16 cases
Wilkie v. City of Boiling Spring Lakes (2018)
nc
“Wilkie are entitled to seek compensation pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 40A-51 based upon the extended flooding of their property as the result of actions taken by defendant City of Boiling Spring Lakes for an allegedly private purpose.”
Peach v. City of High Point (2009)
ncctapp
“The plaintiffs in Ward did not bring an inverse condemnation claim and that case was decided prior to the enactment of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 40A-51, which provides a statutory “inverse condemnation remedy.”
CAPE FEAR PUBLIC UTILITY AUTHORITY v. Costa (2010)
ncctapp
“Defendant's counterclaim is thus governed by N.C. Gen.Stat. § 40A-51, which deals with situations in which "property has been taken by an act or omission of a condemnor listed in G.”
McAdoo v. City of Greensboro (1988)
ncctapp
“Summary judgment for defendant was appropriate not because of the statute of limitations but because defendant as a city had the power of eminent domain, and such power insulates it from trespass actions regardless of whether compensation was paid or proper procedures were used.”
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 40A-51(b) — 2 cases
CAPE FEAR PUBLIC UTILITY AUTHORITY v. Costa (2010)
ncctapp
“Defendant's counterclaim is thus governed by N.C. Gen.Stat. § 40A-51, which deals with situations in which "property has been taken by an act or omission of a condemnor listed in G.”
LeTendre v. Currituck Cty. (2018)
ncctapp
“Laches Plaintiff's eighth cause of action is that "Currituck County's [a]ttempts to [e]nforce Section 10.”
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 40A-51(b)(3) — 1 case
Wilkie v. City of Boiling Spring Lakes (2018)
nc
“Wilkie are entitled to seek compensation pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 40A-51 based upon the extended flooding of their property as the result of actions taken by defendant City of Boiling Spring Lakes for an allegedly private purpose.”
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 40A-51(c) — 5 cases
Wilkie v. City of Boiling Spring Lakes (2018)
nc
“Wilkie are entitled to seek compensation pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 40A-51 based upon the extended flooding of their property as the result of actions taken by defendant City of Boiling Spring Lakes for an allegedly private purpose.”
Howell v. City of Lumberton (2001)
ncctapp
“Plaintiff considered the offer inadequate and refused to sign the release. I. Defendant first assigns error to the trial court’s failure to grant defendant’s motion for involuntary dismissal during the trial.”
McAdoo v. City of Greensboro (1988)
ncctapp
“Summary judgment for defendant was appropriate not because of the statute of limitations but because defendant as a city had the power of eminent domain, and such power insulates it from trespass actions regardless of whether compensation was paid or proper procedures were used.”
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.