Today, the North Carolina Court of Appeals ruled that nine (9) Forsyth County land owners had their property taken by the NCDOT the day NCDOT filed a protected map on their property.   NCDOT will have to now buy these owners’ property, pay interest, costs and fees.  Matthew Bryant of Hendrick Bryant was lead counsel for the property owners in this seminal case.

Other owners in these protected corridors in Forsyth County (Northern Beltway), Guilford County, Wake County (Southern Wake Expressway), Cleveland County (Shelby Bypass), and Pender County (Hampstead Bypass) benefit greatly from today’s ruling.

We started this fight in September 2010, and have had tremendous support from owners and other attorneys throughout the state.   No one should have to wait decades for justice and our Courts have served justice to all.   We should be proud of our system.

Here is the latest article in the Winston-Salem Journal:

http://www.journalnow.com/news/local/n-c-appeals-court-says-state-must-pay-landowners-in/article_c6120f2a-b6d8-11e4-ab57-f39c2adf5231.html (breaking news: N.C. Appeals Court says state must pay landowners in the path of the Northern Beltway)

If you are a property owner whose land has been affected by the Map Act, call Hendrick Bryant Nerhood Sanders & Otis, LLP (336-723-7200) if you are ready to pursue your claim.

Below are excerpts from the conclusions from the Court of Appeals Opinion:

We remand this matter to the trial court to consider evidence concerning the extent of the damage suffered by each Plaintiff as a result of the respective takings and concerning the amount of compensation due to each Plaintiff for such takings.

Additionally, we note that the relief sought by Plaintiffs in their respective complaints was: for the recovery of damages suffered when NCDOT exercised its power of eminent domain against

their properties by recording the transportation corridor maps pursuant to the Map Act; for NCDOT to be compelled to purchase Plaintiffs’ properties; and for recovery of fees, costs, taxes,

and interest. Plaintiffs’ challenge to the constitutionality of the Hardship Program was one of five alternative claims alleged in order to obtain this relief.