N.C. Gen. Stat. » Chapter 40A

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 40A-64

Compensation for taking

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NCLEGncleg.gov (official) JustiaChapter 40A CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), the measure of compensation for a taking of property is its fair market value.

(b) If there is a taking of less than the entire tract, the measure of compensation is the greater of either (i) the amount by which the fair market value of the entire tract immediately before the taking exceeds the fair market value of the remainder immediately after the taking; or (ii) the fair market value of the property taken.

(c) If the owner is to be allowed to remove any timber, building or other permanent improvement, or fixtures from the property, the value thereof shall not be included in the compensation award, but the cost of removal shall be considered as an element to be compensated. (1981, c. 919, s. 1; 2001-487, s. 17.)

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases, 1987–2019 · leading case: Department of Transportation v. Rowe
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Department of Transportation v. Rowe (2001) nc · cites it 15× “It is this choice available under N.C.G.S. § 40A-64 and not available under N.”
Town of Nags Head v. Richardson (2018) ncctapp · cites it 32× “N.C. Gen. Stat. § 40A-64(b) (2017). Valuation under the first subpart, Section 40A- 64(b)(i), is commonly referred to as the “before and after method[,]” Town of Midland v.”
Department of Transportation v. Rowe (2000) ncctapp · cites it 38× “However, a similar setoff is not imposed upon a property owner subjected to a taking under N.C. Gen.Stat. § 40A-64(b). In fact, this statute provides that for partial takings cases, the method for determining just compensation is the greater of either (i) the amount by which the…”
Town of Midland v. Wayne (2015) nc · cites it 8× “2d at 40 (“Defendant is not entitled to additional compensation, beyond the diminution in value as provided in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 40A-64, based on the loss of the right to develop the property in a certain way.”
Guilford County v. Kane (1994) ncctapp · cites it 7× “” N.C.G.S. § 40A-64(b) (1984). Plaintiff’s first contention on appeal is that inasmuch as defendant presented no evidence of either measure of damages as prescribed by the statute, plaintiff was entitled to a directed verdict on the issue of compensation.”
City of Durham v. Woo (1998) ncctapp · cites it 4× “The City argues that the evidence presented regarding the value of the subject property reflected the appreciation resulting from the ballpark project, the purpose for which the subject property was condemned, in violation of the “scope of the project” rule found in N.”
City of Winston-Salem v. Yarbrough (1994) ncctapp · cites it 2× “N.C. Gen. Stat. § 40A-64 (1984). For purposes of determining a property owner’s damages, “all contiguous tracts of land that are in the same ownership and are being used as an integrated economic unit shall be treated as if the *343 combined tracts constituted a single tract.”
NEW HANOVER COUNTY DIST. v. Thompson (2008) ncctapp · cites it 4× “Defendant next argues that plaintiff’s failure to use the statutory formula prescribed by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 40A-64 and failure to use an appraiser to determine the amount of just compensation should preclude application of N.”
Town of Midland v. Wayne (2013) ncctapp · cites it 4× “2 Therefore, where the Town has filed a complaint which will entitle Defendant to compensation based on the diminution in value of the Wayne Tracts caused by the taking of the Easement, an inverse condemnation action by Defendant seeking additional damages resulting in the loss…”
In Re Lee (1987) ncctapp “General Statute § 40A-64 mandates that the proper measure of just compensation for a taking shall be the fair market value of the property taken.”
City of Hillsborough v. Hughes (2000) ncctapp · cites it 2× “Pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 40A-64(b)(I), the jury awarded just compensation as the difference between the fair market value of the entire tract immediately before the taking and the fair market value of the remainder immediately after the taking, fixing compensation for the…”
City of Wilson Redevel'Mt Com'n v. Boykin (2008) ncctapp · cites it 5× “" N.C. Gen. Stat. § 40A-64(a) (2007). "The fair market value of a property may be defined as `the price which a willing buyer would pay to purchase the asset on the open market from a willing seller, with neither party being under any compulsion to complete the transaction.”
Show all 16 citing cases →
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 40A-64(a) — 3 cases
City of Durham v. Woo (1998) ncctapp “The City argues that the evidence presented regarding the value of the subject property reflected the appreciation resulting from the ballpark project, the purpose for which the subject property was condemned, in violation of the “scope of the project” rule found in N.”
City of Wilson Redevel'Mt Com'n v. Boykin (2008) ncctapp “" N.C. Gen. Stat. § 40A-64(a) (2007). "The fair market value of a property may be defined as `the price which a willing buyer would pay to purchase the asset on the open market from a willing seller, with neither party being under any compulsion to complete the transaction.”
CITY OF WILSON REDEVEL'MT COM'N v. Boykin (2008) ncctapp
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 40A-64(b) — 7 cases
Department of Transportation v. Rowe (2001) nc “It is this choice available under N.C.G.S. § 40A-64 and not available under N.”
Department of Transportation v. Rowe (2000) ncctapp “However, a similar setoff is not imposed upon a property owner subjected to a taking under N.C. Gen.Stat. § 40A-64(b). In fact, this statute provides that for partial takings cases, the method for determining just compensation is the greater of either (i) the amount by which the…”
Town of Nags Head v. Richardson (2018) ncctapp “N.C. Gen. Stat. § 40A-64(b) (2017). Valuation under the first subpart, Section 40A- 64(b)(i), is commonly referred to as the “before and after method[,]” Town of Midland v.”
Town of Midland v. Wayne (2015) nc “2d at 40 (“Defendant is not entitled to additional compensation, beyond the diminution in value as provided in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 40A-64, based on the loss of the right to develop the property in a certain way.”
Guilford County v. Kane (1994) ncctapp “” N.C.G.S. § 40A-64(b) (1984). Plaintiff’s first contention on appeal is that inasmuch as defendant presented no evidence of either measure of damages as prescribed by the statute, plaintiff was entitled to a directed verdict on the issue of compensation.”
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 40A-64(b)(I) — 1 case
City of Hillsborough v. Hughes (2000) ncctapp “Pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 40A-64(b)(I), the jury awarded just compensation as the difference between the fair market value of the entire tract immediately before the taking and the fair market value of the remainder immediately after the taking, fixing compensation for the…”
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 40A-64(b)(i) — 3 cases
Town of Nags Head v. Richardson (2018) ncctapp “N.C. Gen. Stat. § 40A-64(b) (2017). Valuation under the first subpart, Section 40A- 64(b)(i), is commonly referred to as the “before and after method[,]” Town of Midland v.”
Guilford County v. Kane (1994) ncctapp “” N.C.G.S. § 40A-64(b) (1984). Plaintiff’s first contention on appeal is that inasmuch as defendant presented no evidence of either measure of damages as prescribed by the statute, plaintiff was entitled to a directed verdict on the issue of compensation.”
Town of Midland v. Wayne (2013) ncctapp “2 Therefore, where the Town has filed a complaint which will entitle Defendant to compensation based on the diminution in value of the Wayne Tracts caused by the taking of the Easement, an inverse condemnation action by Defendant seeking additional damages resulting in the loss…”
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 40A-64(b)(ii) — 2 cases
Town of Nags Head v. Richardson (2018) ncctapp “N.C. Gen. Stat. § 40A-64(b) (2017). Valuation under the first subpart, Section 40A- 64(b)(i), is commonly referred to as the “before and after method[,]” Town of Midland v.”
Town of Nags Head v. Richardson (2019) nc
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 40A-64(c) — 1 case
City of Durham v. Woo (1998) ncctapp “The City argues that the evidence presented regarding the value of the subject property reflected the appreciation resulting from the ballpark project, the purpose for which the subject property was condemned, in violation of the “scope of the project” rule found in N.”
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.