Court Opinion

ID: 9578730
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:47:53.04351+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:29:28.723171
License: Public Domain

TYSON, Judge,
concurring in part, dissenting in part.
I concur with the majority’s opinion that respondent’s interlocutory appeal is properly before us. I do not agree with the remainder of the majority’s opinion on the merits of respondent’s appeal. Affirming the trial court is error because: (1) N.C. Gen. Stat. § 40A-3(a) exempts *620and specifically prohibits petitioner from condemning respondent’s kitchen and garden without the owner’s consent; (2) the trial court improperly imposed a “reasonable size” standard not present in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 40A-3(a); (3) petitioner’s petition does not sufficiently describe the proposed easement as required by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 40A-20 and seeks to exercise unbridled discretion over future expansions, uses, and burdens of the easement; and (4) petitioner’s proposed condemnation of an easement expressly violates N.C. Gen. Stat. § 63-30 and N.C. Gen. Stat. § 63-37.1. I vote to reverse the trial court’s order and respectfully dissent.
I. Standard of Review
Our Supreme Court has stated:
It is well settled that the power of eminent domain is inherent in sovereignty. The Legislature has the right to determine what portion of this sovereign power it will delegate to public or private corporations to be used for public benefit. The right of eminent domain must be conferred by statute, expressly or by necessary implication, and such statute must be strictly construed.
Colonial Pipeline Co. v. Neill, 296 N.C. 503, 504, 251 S.E.2d 457, 459 (1979) (internal citations omitted) (emphasis supplied).
II. Respondent’s Kitchen and Garden
Respondent argues the trial court erred in interpreting and applying N.C. Gen. Stat. § 40A-3(a) to allow petitioner’s condemnation of his kitchen and garden. I agree.
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 40A-3(a) (2005) states, “No such condemnor shall be allowed to have condemned to its use, without the consent of the owner, his burial ground, usual dwelling house and yard, kitchen and garden, unless condemnation of such property is expressly authorized by statute.” (Emphasis supplied).
Our Supreme Court has stated:
The limitation contained in G.S. 40-10 [the immediate predecessor of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 40A-3(a)] as enacted by the General Assembly of 1852, chapter 92, section 1, which was an act to define the duties and powers of turnpike and plank road companies. It was codified in the Revised Code of 1855, chapter 61, section 21, and read as follows: “No such corporation shall be allowed to have condemned to its use, without the consent of the *621owner, his dwelling house, yard, kitchen, garden or burial ground.” This exact language was carried forward in section 1701, chapter 38, in the Code of 1883. The provision later became a part of section 2578 of the Revisal of 1905, chapter 61.
Mount Olive v. Cowan, 235 N.C. 259, 260, 69 S.E.2d 525, 526 (1952). Our Supreme Court has specifically recognized the limitation contained in Section 2578 of the Revisal of 1905, Chapter 61, a direct predecessor to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 40A-3(a), applies to petitioner as a private condemnor. R. R. Manufacturing Co. v. Mecklenburg Mfg. Co., 166 N.C. 168, 180-81, 82 S.E. 5, 10 (1914). The prohibitions contained in the statutes have remained virtually unchanged for 155 years and have been continuously re-codified by our General Assembly in each revisal of the North Carolina General Statutes. Mount Olive, 235 N.C. at 260, 69 S.E.2d at 526.
A. Burden of Proof
The petitioner bears the burden of: (1) proving a legal right to condemn the property described in the petition; (2) establishing the legal sufficiency of the petition; and (3) showing affirmative compliance with all applicable statutory provisions. See Redevelopment Comm. v. Grimes, 277 N.C. 634, 643, 178 S.E.2d 345, 350 (1971) (The petitioner “must exercise the power of eminent domain pursuant to Chapter 160 and Chapter 40, and in order to invoke the power of eminent domain petitioner must affirmatively allege or prove compliance with the statutory requirements.”); City of Charlotte v. McNeely, 8 N.C. App. 649, 653, 175 S.E.2d 348, 351 (1970) (“[W]hen the City undertook to exercise the power of eminent domain which had been granted to it by the Legislature, it was necessary that it both allege and prove compliance with statutory procedural requirements.”). The General Assembly’s limited delegation of eminent domain to petitioner, as a private condemnation authority, is expressly limited by Articles One and Two of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 40A.
Petitioner carries the burden to prove the proposed condemnation of an easement does not violate N.C. Gen. Stat. § 40A-3(a). Id. The trial court and the majority’s opinion erroneously shifts the burden onto respondent to prove petitioner’s purported easement actually condemns respondent’s kitchen or garden. The majority’s opinion relies on N.C. Gen. Stat. § 40A-25 to assert “respondent bore the burden of proving that the court should not grant the petition[.]” I disagree.
*622“It is a well established principle of statutory construction that a section of a statute dealing with a specific situation controls, with respect to that situation, [over] other sections which are general in their application.” Utilities Comm. v. Electric Membership Corp., 275 N.C. 250, 260, 166 S.E.2d 663, 670 (1969).. “When, ... [a] section dealing with a specific matter is clear and understandable on its face, it requires no construction.” Id.
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 40A-25 is a statute of general applicability that applies, as the majority states, “to eminent domain proceedings by private condemnors.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 40A-3(a) is a specific prohibition exempting from private condemnation an owner’s “burial ground, usual dwelling house and yard, kitchen and garden” without the condemnor proving either “the consent of the owner” or that the condemnation is “expressly authorized by statute.” This statute clearly and unambiguously places the burden on petitioner to either show “consent of the owner” or that the condemnation is “expressly authorized by statute.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 40A-3(a). This specific statute trumps the general provisions of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 40A-25. Utilities Comm., 275 N.C. at 260, 166 S.E.2d at 670.
B. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 62-183 and $ 62-184 (2005)
In the absence of the owner’s consent, petitioner argues its power to condemn respondent’s kitchen and garden “is expressly authorized by statute” based upon N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 62-183 and 62-184. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 40A-3(a): I disagree.
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 62-183 is a legislative delegation of a portion of the state’s eminent domain powers to private condemnors, to include public utilities. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 62-183. The powers granted to petitioner in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 62-183 are expressly limited by the provisions of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 62-184 which expressly restate the prohibitions contained in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 40A-3(a):
The dwelling house, yard, kitchen, garden or burial ground of the owner may be taken under G.S. 62-183 when the company alleges, and upon the proceedings to condemn makes it appear to the satisfaction of the court, that it owns or otherwise controls not less than seventy-five percent (75%) of the fall of the river or stream on which it proposes to erect its works, from the location of its proposed dam to the head of its pond or reservoir; or when the Commission, upon the petition filed by the company, shall, after due inquiry, so authorize.
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 62-184 (emphasis supplied).
*623Here, petitioner does not propose to erect any “works” on a “river or stream.” The State Utilities Commission (“the Commission”) did not “so authorize” petitioner’s taking of respondent’s kitchen and garden. Id. The record clearly shows the Commission specifically avoided ruling on this issue and concluded, “The remaining issues regarding the valuation of land and the presence of burial grounds, gardens, and kitchens are issues which need not be resolved in the current certification proceeding but are left to be resolved, if necessary, in the final acquisition of right-of-way for the new transmission line.” (Emphasis supplied). Petitioner’s asserted power to take respondent’s kitchen and garden is: (1) without respondent’s consent; (2) not authorized by North Carolina statutes; and (3) not “so authorized” by the Commission. Id.
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 40A-3(a) is an express reservation by the General Assembly from its delegation under the police power of eminent domain to private condemors to take private property unless the property is acquired with the owner’s consent or through the authority granted in another statute. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 40A-3(a). The General Assembly’s prohibitions contained in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 40A-3(a) are expressly recited in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 62-184. The uses and classes of private property exempt from being taken are recited verbatim. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 62-184.
The exempt properties are those regarded as worthy of the highest protections from interference by others and are so closely related to a person’s shelter, food, maintenance, and the sacred grounds containing the remains of family members. These prohibitions have been maintained and continued virtually unchanged for over 155 years, for more than one half of the time of North Carolina’s existence as a state. When the statutes are read together, the identical exemptions and prohibitions show the General Assembly’s clear intent to prohibit a private condemnor from taking another owner’s specified private property unless the condemning entity proves the consent of the owner or strict compliance with the requirements contained in both N.C. Gen. Stat. § 40A-3(a) and N.C. Gen. Stat. § 62-184.
C. Condemnation of Respondent’s Kitchen and Garden
The issue is whether petitioner’s proposed easement condemns portions of respondent’s kitchen and garden. Petitioner argues the proposed easement does not condemn a portion of respondent’s garden. I disagree.
*624Here, petitioner expressly carries the burden to prove the proposed easement does not condemn respondent’s kitchen or garden. See Redevelopment Comm., 277 N.C. at 643, 178 S.E.2d at 350 (Petitioner “must exercise the power of eminent domain pursuant to Chapter 160 and Chapter 40 and in order to invoke the power of eminent domain petitioner must affirmatively allege or prove compliance with the statutory requirements.” (emphasis supplied)); City of Charlotte, 8 N.C. App. at 653, 175 S.E.2d at 351 (“[W]hen the City undertook to exercise the power of eminent domain which had been granted to it by the Legislature, it was necessary that it both allege and prove compliance with statutory procedural requirements.” (emphasis supplied)).
Respondent’s uncontradicted testimony showed the land petitioner seeks to condemn has been owned by respondent’s family for over a hundred years and consists of his home place, kitchen, garden, burial ground, and yard. Respondent did not consent to petitioner’s taking. Respondent identified the parameters of the garden his family had established and used for many years and testified petitioner’s proposed condemnation would take portions of the garden. Respondent testified the petitioner’s surveying stake was placed in the middle of the garden. Petitioner failed to present any evidence whatsoever to rebut respondent’s testimony and other evidence admitted. Petitioner failed to meet its burden to prove the proposed easement does not condemn respondent’s garden and does not violate N.C. Gen. Stat. § 40A-3(a). The trial court erred by failing to rule petitioner’s condemnation violated N.C. Gen. Stat. § 40A-3(a).
The trial court also erred in interpreting and applying N.C. Gen. Stat. § 40A-3(a). The trial court’s finding of fact numbered 23 states: “The easement to be taken by condemnation over Respondent’s property does not affect the kitchen and reasonable size garden of the Respondent as said property existed on the date the Petition was filed, February 2, 2005.” The trial court hand wrote the words “reasonable size” into the remaining typed portions of finding of fact 23. The trial court improperly imposed a quantification and a reasonableness standard onto the size or extent of respondent’s garden that does not appear in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 40A-3(a).
As noted, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 40A-3(a) states in relevant part:
No such condemnor shall be allowed to have condemned to its use, without the consent of the owner, his burial ground, usual *625dwelling house and yard, kitchen and garden, unless condemnation of such property is expressly authorized by statute.
Our Supreme Court has stated “it is well settled that where the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, there is no room for judicial construction and the courts must give [the statute] its plain and definite meaning, and are without power to interpolate, or superimpose, provisions and limitations not contained therein.” Union Carbide Corp. v. Offerman, 351 N.C. 310, 314, 526 S.E.2d 167, 170 (2000) (internal quotations and citations omitted). The right of eminent domain “must be strictly construed.” Colonial Pipeline Co., 296 N.C. at 504, 251 S.E.2d at 459.
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 40A-3(a) is clear and unambiguous and does not contain a “reasonable size” standard to allow the trial court to limit, ignore or fa.il to enforce the express terms of the statute. Under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 40A-3(a), our General Assembly has strictly protected, for 155 years, a landowners “burial ground, usual dwelling house and yard, kitchen and garden.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 40A-3(a). Allowing the trial court to judicially impose a “reasonable size” standard on respondent’s kitchen and garden would allow a court to impose a “reasonable size” standard on respondent’s home and burial grounds that is not allowed by the statute. The trial court erred as a matter of law by judicially re-drafting the statute and imposing a “reasonable size” limitation that does not appear in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 40A-3(a). Union Carbide Corp., 351 N.C. at 314, 526 S.E.2d at 170; Colonial Pipeline Co., 296 N.C. at 504, 251 S.E.2d at 459.
III. Description of the Proposed Easement
Respondent argues petitioner’s petition does not sufficiently describe the easement to be condemned and failed to define with particularity the rights petitioner purports to take. I agree.
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 40A-20 (2005) states the information that must be stated in a petition for condemnation and requires, in relevant part:
The petition shall be signed and verified. If filed by the condem-nor, it must contain a description of the property which the con-demnor seeks to acquire-, and it must state that the condemnor is duly incorporated, and that it is its intention in good faith to conduct and carry on the public business authorized by its charter, stating in detail the nature of its public business, and the specific use of the property[.]
*626(Emphasis supplied). Petitioner was required to define with particularity: (1) the location and description of any claimed easement; and, (2) the “specific use[s]”, burdens, and extent of any claimed easement. Id.; Cannon v. City of Wilmington, 242 N.C. 711, 714, 89 S.E.2d 595, 597 (1955), cert. denied, 352 U.S. 842, 1 L. Ed. 2d 58 (1956). “An easement, of course, is an interest in land, and, . . . the description thereof must not be too uncertain, vague and indefinite.” Gruber v. Eubank, 197 N.C. 280, 284, 148 S.E. 246, 248 (1929). The purpose, burdens, and allowed uses of an easement must “be set forth precisely.” Patrick K. Hetrick & James B. McLaughlin, Jr., Webster’s Real Estate Law in North Carolina § 15-9 (5th ed. 1999).
Petitioner also bears the burden of establishing the legal sufficiency of the petition. See Redevelopment Comm., 277 N.C. at 643, 178 S.E.2d at 350; City of Charlotte, 8 N.C. App. at 653, 175 S.E.2d at 351. While the petition provides a legal description of the easement area to be taken, it fails to describe with particularity the specific uses, burdens, and extent of the easement, attempts to provide petitioner with unbridled discretion over future additional uses and burdens and structures within the easement, and purports to muzzle respondent’s objections or assertion of his underlying property rights. Cannon, 242 N.C. at 714, 89 S.E.2d at 597.
The petition failed to describe the number or location of power lines and poles to be constructed across respondent’s property lines, the height of power lines, and the voltage of the lines, or other improvements to be located on the easement. The proposed easement states, “Petitioner reserves the right to construct future facilities within said easement area and Respondent shall not interfere with or object to the construction of said future facilities." Without the statutorily required specificity, petitioners’ purported “easement” is actually a taking of all of respondent’s rights, title, and interest in the property described in the petition under the ghise of an easement. Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419, 441, 73 L. Ed. 2d 868, 886 (1982) (“[A] permanent physical occupation of property is a [per se] taking.”).
Petitioner’s failed to allege with particularity the extent of the specific uses, burdens, and improvements it seeks to take within the claimed easement in their petition. Cannon, 242 N.C. at 714, 89 S.E.2d at 597; N.C. Gen. Stat. § 40A-20. Petitioner’s also failed to meet their burden of establishing the legal sufficiency of the petition. See Redevelopment Comm., 277 N.C. at 643, 178 S.E.2d at 350; City of *627Charlotte, 8 N.C. App. at 653, 175 S.E.2d at 351. The trial court erred by not dismissing petitioner’s petition.
IV. Respondent’s Airport
Respondent also argues petitioner cannot exercise the power of eminent domain in contravention of North Carolina law prohibiting the obstruction of respondent’s private airport and runways. Respondent contends that the petition must also be dismissed because the proposed easement creates an obstruction and hazard to respondent’s pre-existing and established airstrips in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 63-30 and 63-37.1 (2005). I agree.
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 63-30 states:
It is hereby found and declared that an airport hazard endangers the lives and property of users of the airport and of occupants of land in its vicinity, and also, if the obstruction type, in effect reduces the size of the area available for the landing, taking off and maneuvering of aircraft, thus tending to destroy or impair the utility of the airport and the public investment therein, and is therefore not in the interest of the public health, public safety, or general welfare.
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 63-37.1 states:
Any person, other than the owner or operator of an airport, who intentionally obstructs the lawful takeoff and landing operations and patterns of aircraft at an existing public or private airport shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.
An airport is defined in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 63-1 (2005) as:
(8) “Airport” means any area of land or water, except a restricted landing area, which is designed for the landing and take off of aircraft, whether or not facilities are provided for the shelter, servicing, or repair of aircraft, or for receiving or discharging passengers or cargo, and all appurtenant areas used or suitable for airport buildings or other airport facilities, and all appurtenant rights-of-way, whether heretofore or hereafter established.
Uncontradicted testimony established respondent’s airstrips and related facilities constitute an airport under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 63-1. The trial court found as fact that “The easement to be taken by condemnation over Respondent’s property will affect in some way one or both of the two (2) airstrips of the Respondent.” Based upon this *628unchallenged finding of fact, the trial court erred by failing to conclude as a matter of law that petitioner’s petition violated N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 63-30 and 63-37.1. No finding of fact supports the trial court’s conclusion of law to allow the condemnation to lawfully proceed.
As noted above, petitioner bears the burden of showing affirmative compliance with all applicable statutory provisions. See Redevelopment Comm., 277 N.C. at 643, 178 S.E.2d at 350; City of Charlotte, 8 N.C. App. at 653, 175 S.E.2d at 351. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 63-30 and § 63-37.1 statutorily control this petition. Petitioner failed to meet its burden of showing affirmative compliance with these statutes.
The term “person” is defined in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 63-37.1 as “any individual, firm, partnership, corporation, company, association, joint stock association, or body politic; and includes any trustee, receiver, assignee, or other similar representative thereof.” N.C. Gen. Stat. 63-l(a)(17) (emphasis supplied). N.C. Gen. Stat. § 63-37.1 is a criminal statute- of general applicability, and applies to all “persons”, including petitioner in its purported exercise of their power of eminent domain. Petitioner failed to offer any evidence or argument that it or other private condemnors are specifically exempted from the statutory prohibitions of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 63-30 and § 63-37.1. '
Petitioner failed to offer any evidence to prove its petition complied with applicable statutory provisions, N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 63-30 and 63-37.1. The trial court’s unchallenged finding of fact shows the proposed taking “will affect in some way one or both of the two (2) airstrips of the Respondent.” The trial court’s findings of fact do not support its conclusion of law, and compels a contrary conclusion. The trial court erred by not dismissing the petition.
V. Conclusion
The majority’s conclusion to affirm the trial court is error because: (1) N.C. Gen. Stat. § 40A-3(a) (2005) prohibits petitioner from condemning respondent’s kitchen and garden without the owner’s consent; (2) the trial court judicially re-drafted N.C. Gen. Stat. § 40A-3(a) and unlawfully imposed a “reasonable size” standard on respondent’s garden that does not appear and is not allowed by the clear and unambiguous language of the statute; (3) petitioner’s petition does not specifically describe the uses, burdens, and extent of the proposed easement as required by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 40A-20 and seeks to enlarge, in petitioner’s unbridled discretion, the uses, burdens, and structures petitioner may impose on respond*629ent in the future; and (4) petitioner’s proposed imposition of an easement on respondent’s airport violates N.C. Gen. Stat. § 63-30 and § 63-37.1. These errors of law, singularly or collectively, compels dismissal of petitioner’s petition. I vote to reverse the trial court’s order and remand with instructions to dismiss the petition. I respectfully dissent.