Opinion ID: 1057823
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Condemnation Proceeding

Text: The Condo Association makes three related arguments. First, the Condo Association argues that the trial court erred in allowing the City to use the condemnation proceeding as a surrogate for a declaratory judgment action to determine ownership of the Easements. 4 Second, the Condo Association contends that, by allowing the City to try title in conjunction with a condemnation proceeding, the circuit court effectively 4 On brief and at oral argument, the Condo Association attempts to frame the “fundamental issue appealed” as whether a condemnor can claim that it already possessed the rights it sought to condemn “[a]fter a just-compensation trial has gone badly.” The record, however, establishes that the City claimed that it already owned the easements before it initiated the condemnation proceedings. The pre-condemnation offer letter clearly demonstrates this belief, as does the petition for condemnation, where the City specifically states that it “believes that the only persons who are entitled to an interest in the compensation to be ascertained by this proceeding are:” the Condo Association and the general public. 6 allowed the City to condemn its own property. Third, the Condo Association asserts that, because the City cannot condemn property it already owns, the initiation of a condemnation proceeding necessarily acts as a judicial admission by the City that it did not own the property. The statutes confirming the power of eminent domain must be strictly construed, and a locality must comply fully with the statutory requirements when attempting to exercise this right. We consider the language of each statute at issue to determine the General Assembly’s intent from the plain and natural meaning of the words used. When the language of a statute is unambiguous, courts are bound by the plain meaning of that language. Hoffman Family, L.L.C. v. City of Alexandria, 272 Va. 274, 28384, 634 S.E.2d 722, 727 (2006) (citations omitted). Contrary to the argument raised by the Condo Association, the City is not attempting to condemn property it already owns, nor was the City’s filing a judicial admission that it did not own the Easements. Rather, the City sought to condemn the Easements, the ownership of which was in dispute. An examination of the statutes dealing with condemnation demonstrates that the General Assembly clearly intended to allow a circuit court to determine ownership of the condemned property as part of the condemnation proceeding. 7 Code § 25.1-222 5 provides that, where a controversy exists among the parties regarding the ownership of the property, the ownership rights of the respective parties will be determined “in the manner hereinafter provided in § 25.1-241.” Code § 25.1-241 6 also uses similarly general terms, specifically: “claimants” and “persons.” Although the term “claimant” is not defined, it is noteworthy that the definition of “[p]erson” applicable to eminent domain proceedings under Title 25.1 specifically includes “the Commonwealth” as well as “any city, county, town, or other political subdivision.” Code § 25.1-100. 5 Code § 25.1-222 states: No delay in the proceeding for the determination of just compensation shall be occasioned by the claims of the parties with respect to the ownership of any land or other property or to the interest therein of the respective parties. In such cases the court shall require the retention of the deposit of the award for the whole property, or the part in dispute, until the rights of the respective parties have been determined in the manner hereinafter provided in § 25.1-241; provided, however, the court shall permit any such claimants to intervene as parties to the proceedings as provided in § 25.1-218. 6 The relevant portion of Code § 25.1-241 states: A. If it appears to the court that there exists a controversy among claimants to the fund and any interest accrued thereon, or to the ownership of the property subject to the condemnation, the court shall enter an order setting a time for hearing the case and determining the rights and claims of all persons entitled to the fund or to any interest or share therein. 8 The General Assembly could have limited Code §§ 25.1-222 and -241 to apply only to the respondents of a condemnation proceeding, but it chose not to. Indeed, it is worth noting that the General Assembly provided just such a limitation within other provisions of the condemnation statutes. Under Code § 25.1-243(A), “a party whose property or interest therein is to be taken or damaged” can apply for a withdrawal pendente lite “of the amount deposited for his interest in the property to be taken or damaged.” (Emphasis added.) Clearly, this limitation only applies to respondents/condemnees, as a petitioner/condemnor, regardless of whether it is seeking to confirm or acquire ownership in a property, could never be “a party whose property or interest therein is to be taken or damaged.” In the present case, the City and the Condo Association are both “parties” to the condemnation proceeding and there can be no doubt that ownership of the Easements was in dispute. Furthermore, nothing in either Code §§ 25.1-222 or -241 indicates that the General Assembly intended to exclude the petitioner/condemnor from being considered a party, claimant, or person as the terms are used within the statutes. Therefore, under Code §§ 25.1-222 and -241, not only did the circuit court have the jurisdiction to determine the ownership of the property as between the parties, but it was also required to do so. 9 Accordingly, we hold that the trial court did not err in permitting the City to claim it already owned the Easements or in determining the parties’ ownership rights as part of the condemnation proceedings.