A recent Virginia circuit court opinion in City of Waynesboro v. Hopeman Land Company serves as a cautionary tale for condemning authorities, emphasizing the importance of precision, planning, and adherence to statutory requirements.

At the heart of this case was a common municipal objective: stormwater management. The City of Waynesboro identified a parcel of land owned by Hopeman Land Company (“Hopeman”) as a suitable site for a stormwater detention facility, part of a larger effort to reduce nutrient and sediment runoff into the Chesapeake Bay. The city proceeded with a Certificate of Take, condemning 5.199 acres and depositing $52,000 as just compensation – a number that exceeded the city’s appraised value for the property.

However, after the city completed the project, it became evident that only 2.756 acres were needed for the stormwater facility. The remaining 2.443 acres—nearly half the original taking—were deemed surplus. Seeking to correct this, the City filed a Motion to Amend the Certificate of Take, requesting that the excess land be returned to Hopeman. Hopeman, in turn, contested the taking, arguing that the city had exceeded its authority under Article I, Section 11 of the Virginia Constitution, which prohibits condemning more land than is necessary for a stated public use.

The court ultimately denied the city’s motion and invalidated the original Certificate of Take, ruling that the city’s condemnation of surplus land was unconstitutional.  The city had conducted a 15-month feasibility study prior to condemnation yet still failed to determine the precise acreage required. The court found that this failure to conduct due diligence did not justify a broad taking with the intent to later adjust the boundaries.  The city argued that its amendment was permissible under Virginia law, which allows condemnors to revise Certificates of Take under certain circumstances. The court disagreed, holding that a nearly 50% reduction in condemned land was more than a minor correction—it was evidence of an unjustified excess taking from the outset. The ruling referenced a different circuit court case, City of Chesapeake v. KH HR Two Great Bridge, LLC, in which a locality sought to amend a Certificate of Take. In both of these cases, the courts interpreted such amendments as implicit acknowledgments that the original takings violated constitutional protections (although it remains to be seen if this  line of reasoning stands up before an appellate court; the facts in KH HR Two Great Bridge, LLC are convoluted at best and don’t involve the kind of significant excess involved in Hopeman).

Key Takeaways for Condemning Authorities

The Waynesboro v. Hopeman case highlights important considerations for municipalities, transportation departments, and public utilities engaging in eminent domain:

  • Conduct thorough pre-condemnation assessments. Feasibility studies should include precise engineering and environmental evaluations to determine as closely as practicable the exact land required for a project.
  • Ensure documentation supports necessity. Condemning authorities should carefully document why a particular acreage is required. Don’t be arbitrary or capricious.
  • When moving to amend, have a reason for the reduction. While Virginia law permits modifications under certain circumstances, in this particular case the main issue was that the condemning authority did not have a justification for how much land it took in the first place, and thus it had no meaningful explanation for why it needed to amend down.

For public agencies involved in land acquisition, this case serves as a reminder that careful planning and legal diligence upfront can prevent significant setbacks down the road.

Subscribe

Jeff Wilson is a member of Pender & Coward’s Local Government practice group, with over 20 years of practice in litigation, local government, and intellectual property matters.