Beroth Oil Co. v. N.C. Dep't of Transp., No. COA17-74

Docket NºNo. COA17-74
Citation808 S.E.2d 488, 256 N.C.App. 401
Case DateNovember 21, 2017
CourtCourt of Appeal of North Carolina (US)

256 N.C.App. 401
808 S.E.2d 488

BEROTH OIL COMPANY; Smith, Paula and Kenneth; Clapp, Barbara ; Crockett, Pamela Moore; Estate of WR Moore; N&G Properties, Inc. ; Koonce, Elton V.; Republic Properties; Kirby, Eugene and Martha; Harris Triad Homes, Inc.; Hendrix, Michael; Engelkemier, Darren; Hutagalung, Ian; Maedl, Sylvia; Stept, Stephen; Nelson, James and Phyliss; Shugart Enterprises, LLC; Stump, Franklin and Minnie; Jade Associates, LLC.; Clayton, Alma C.; Pegram, Elaine Smith; Trident Properties, LLC; McAllister, Judith T.; Marshall, Andrew William (Jointly Held Fam. Property); Seidelmann, John H. and Rosemary; Pope, James and Wanda; Patee, Ronnie and Vesta; McFadden, Kenneth and Pamela ; Mann, Ronald Carson; Hiatt, Earl B. and Crissman; Little, Loren A. and Margaret; Lewis, Henry and Rebecca; Lawson, Kathryn L. ; Kinney, Lois K.; Fulk, Michael David; Eudy, Krone Edward; Dillon, Charles Ray and Judy; Bullins, Billie Joe and Carolyn; CW Myers Trading Post, Inc. ; Brabham, Verdell & Marla; Diehl, Scott C.; Hiatt, Everett and Teresa; Lasley, Kathryn M.; Omega Seafood (Gus and Maria Hodges); Peak, Gary W.; Shropshire, John and Bessie; Smith, Chester Monroe and Betty; Thore, Brenda Sue, Sdarah Thore Hammond, James Thore; Turpin, James and Sister, Marjorie Hutchens; Howell, Mark and Melissa; Watkins, James and Delores; Lewis, Jerry B. and Dennis; Canipe, Constance Flynt Mullinex and Donald F. Weisner ; Weisner, Johnny and Hazel (Jointly Held Fam Property); Allan, and Wife, Joan; Boose, Thelma; Myers, Dale and Mary; Conte, Judith A.; Cline, Jeffery and Dana; Pfafftown Baptist ; Providence Moravian ; Greer, Honey Christine Collins and Jefferey; Terronez, Inocente and Sonia Domiquez; Folk, John and Margaret; Houck, Scott; Blanchard, Paul; Berrier, Don M. and Linda; Blackford, Ken A.; Weeks, Shawn D.; Alexander, John H. and Wife Karen L.; Bailey, Robert Christopher and Karen K.; Barry, Hilda S.; Buchanan, John A. Jr. and Wife Carol Jones; Caldwell, Melvin and Sherie; Cameron, Carmie J. and Wayne R.; Central Triad Church–Leroy Kelly; Church, Christopher D. and Shelley J.; Conrad-Whitt, Glady B. and Loretta C. Whitt et al.; Conrad, Harold Gray; Darrah, Elizabeth S. and Jason D.; Davenport, Leonard C. and Elsie H.; Davis, Sherry L.; Decker, Donna Ballard; Dillon, Tony Lee and Toni P.; Dorn, Frank R.; Fabrizio, Jeffrey P.; Francis, Linda Denise; Fulp, Jarvis R. and Gloria F.; Girard, Frank J. and Wife Carol; Griffin, Thomas J. and Nancy C.; Hammaker, Douglas E. and Melicent S.; Hammock, Helen Manos and Margaret Hammock Hoerner; Hayworth, Sibyl F.; Hemric, Danny W. and Beverly M.; Hennis, Tamra; Hoban, Janet and Craig; Holmes, Scott P. and Pamela A. Hill-Holmes; Hubbard Realty of W-S Inc.; Iron City Investments, LLC –Scott Scearce; Jones Estate et al.; Keith, Mark A. and Cathy E.; Kiser, Jeffrey and Elizabeth ; Lee/McDowell, Latrice Nicole; Lowry, Harry R. and Sandra P; Lutheran Home W/S Property; Main, Jeffrey C. and Amber D.; Martin, Terry W. and Jo Ann H.; Miller, Carl Jr. and Curtis Carpenter; Mitchell, Christopher R.; Moore, Hilda Brown, Widow; Moravian Church Southern Province; Nash, Richard and Mel–Crowder, Rick and Sarah et al.; Board of Trustees of Oak Grove Moravian Church ; Regional Realty, Inc–Keith D. Norman et al.; Shelton, JC and Magalene R.; Simcic, Joesph J. and Rebecca M.; Smith, Linda G.; Snell, David P. ; Stack, William C. and Donya J.; Stafford, Violet G.; Stephenson, Gregory J. and Le'Anna H.; Sumner, John E., Sr. and Ann H.; Swaim, Derrick and Wife Kristina C.; Taffer, Landon and Evon; Taft, Lamar S. and Charles V.; Thomason, Pattie W. and Velma G Parnell; Vanhoy, Dale C.; Violette, Michael E. and Deborah W.; White, Lee and Areather; Wray, Megan P and Alan Michael; Westfall, Robert W. and Kelli D.; Behan, Austin C. and Mary Jean; Bentley, Charles J., Sr. and Brenda G.; Bethany Baptist Church; Cook, Shirley T. and Cooper, Jenny C. ; Wilmoth-Douthit et al.; Dasilva, George; Fluitt, Joe and Pamela Martin; Hanna, Heather W. and Mark J.; Hubbard Realty; Kuhl, William A. and Brenda S.; LB3 LLC– Hilo Enterprises, LLC ; Liner, Dale S. and Peggy; Luper, Ferrell M. and Joyce; Glass, Lavonda; MDC Investments, LLC; Seivers, Harvey W. and Betty C.; Smalls, Sampson H. and Sharon; Smith, Sam & Chris ; Swaisgood, Thomas D.; Thrush, Glenn E., Jr.; Trotter, Helen L.; Tucker, Margaret; Vance, Latandra T.; Westmoreland, CB Heirs et al.; White, Doris T., Widow; Hicks, Ronald ; Smith, Linda; Snow, Craig; Sedge Garden Pool; Kearney, Clyde and Hugh; Beane, Tabitha; Flake, Wildon C., Jr.; Adams, Webb, Thomas; Gordon, Helen ; Pearson, Beverly; Bias, Teresa; Boyles, Dante; Clark, Jon; Fletcher, Joseph; Embler, Debbie; Gurstein, Scott; Hobbs, Steven ; Thore, Bobby; Charles, Deborah T.; Fortney, Walter; Nodine, Dennis and Elizabeth; Messick, Bill (J.G. Messick & Son, Inc.); Monroe, Elder Ronald; Ward, Peggy ; Perkins, Jerrie; Shouse, Christine R. Kautz and Paul Kautz; Peeples, Wade and Mary Lou; Cunningham, John and Gayle ; Chapman, Lee and Peggy–Chapman Family Trust; Willard, Daniel; Crews, Rachel; Rogers, Darrell and Amber; Hemmingway, Reeshemah; Holt, Linda; Aldridge, Martha ; Hooper, Mary ; Westmoreland, Jack ; Bolin, Amber; Brewer Jr., Bobby; Briggs, John; Burchette, Glenn & Tammy; Hill, Eugene - Esh Rental; Hawks, Howard; Spear, Joyce & Kimberly; Stoltz, William ; Stimpson, Robert ; Stewart, Ashley; Roddy, Terry; Nelson, Stephen and Theresa ; Mckinney, Matthew and Tangela; Flinchum, Marlene; Plaintiffs,
v.
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Defendant.

and
Bell, Kenneth E.; Barley, Jo Ellen and Mary B. Watson; Summers, Michael and Brenda; Grundman, Robert E. and Linda L.; Pickard, Mark J. and Linda J.; Felts Family Limited Partnership; Plaintiffs,
v.
North Carolina Department of Transportation, Defendant.

No. COA17-74

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: November 21, 2017


Hendrick Bryant Nerhood Sanders & Otis, LLP, Winston-Salem, by Matthew H. Bryant, T. Paul Hendrick, Timothy Nerhood, W. Kirk Sanders, and Kenneth C. Otis III, for plaintiffs-appellees.

Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Special Deputy Attorney General James M. Stanley, Jr. ; Teague Campbell Dennis & Gorham, LLP, Raleigh, by Matthew W. Skidmore and Jacob H. Wellman ; and Smith, Anderson, Blount, Dorsett, Mitchell & Jernigan, LLP, Raleigh, by Steven M. Sartorio and William H. Moss, for the North Carolina Department of Transportation, defendant-appellant.

BERGER, Judge.

256 N.C.App. 404

The North Carolina Department of Transportation ("NCDOT") appeals an October 3, 2016 order (the "Order") that addressed three issues in an inverse condemnation action filed by two hundred and eleven plaintiffs in both Forsyth and Guilford Counties against NCDOT seeking just compensation for the regulatory taking effectuated by NCDOT's recordation of a transportation corridor map pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 136-44.50 to .54 (the "Map Act"). In some instances, the plaintiff's property rights were taken almost two decades ago. The appealed order granted nine plaintiffs’ summary judgment motion as directed by our Supreme Court and this Court, partially granted the remaining plaintiffs’ motion for judgment on the pleadings, and set forth the rules and procedures by which the trial court would

808 S.E.2d 493

adjudicate the remaining issues of the individual cases.

To establish grounds for immediate review of the interlocutory order, NCDOT asserts two substantial rights that it alleges would not be fully and adequately protected by appellate review after final judgment. First, NCDOT argues that decisions involving title and area taken in eminent domain proceedings affect a substantial right and are appropriate for immediate review. While this is a substantial right, and may justify interlocutory review, it is a right of one who holds an interest in property, not a right of the condemnor if that condemnor holds no interest. NCDOT has not argued that it holds any interest in the properties at issue in this appeal. Therefore, this ground for interlocutory review must fail.

Second, NCDOT argues that decisions depriving the State of its right to sovereign immunity affect a substantial right and require immediate review. Again, this is generally a substantial right and could certainly justify our interlocutory review, except that the litigation has progressed

256 N.C.App. 405

well past the point where sovereign immunity could be asserted, as it is a jurisdictional bar to suit against the State. Furthermore, sovereign immunity does not bar suit against the State when the State has exercised its eminent domain power. Therefore, in this instance, sovereign immunity provides no protection for the State, and NCDOT's assertion of sovereign immunity appears to be for no reason but either delay or distraction.

Because sovereign immunity has generally been held to be a substantial right allowing interlocutory appeal, NCDOT initially introduces its argument attempting to establish grounds for appellate review as one of sovereign immunity. Yet, the substance of its argument quickly shifts to a separation of powers argument in which NCDOT asserts that the judicial branch is barred from ordering the executive branch to expend monies from the state treasury absent an appropriation of the legislative branch. See N.C. Const. art. V, § 7 ("No money shall be drawn from the State treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by law."). However,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 practice notes
  • Eastpointe Human Servs. v. N.C. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., COA21-264
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeal of North Carolina (US)
    • July 5, 2022
    ...action in order to finally determine the rights of all parties involved in the controversy." Beroth Oil Co. v. N.C. Dep't. of Transp., 256 N.C.App. 401, 410, 808 S.E.2d 488, 496 (2017) (quoting Peterson v. Dillman, 245 N.C.App. 239, 242, 782 S.E.2d 362, 365 (2016)). Generally, a party has n......
  • Johnson v. Johnson, No. COA17-502
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeal of North Carolina (US)
    • June 5, 2018
    ...adequately protected by exception to entry of the interlocutory order." Beroth Oil Co. v. NC Dept. of Transp. , ––– N.C. App. ––––, ––––, 808 S.E.2d 488, 496 (2017) (citation and quotation marks omitted). In the case sub judice , Defendant appeals from an order denying Defendant's motion to......
  • State v. Kinston Charter Academy, No. COA18-688
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeal of North Carolina (US)
    • December 3, 2019
    ...action in order to finally determine the rights of all parties involved in the controversy. Beroth Oil Co. v. N.C. Dep't of Transp ., 256 N.C. App. 401, 410, 808 S.E.2d 488, 496 (2017) (citations and quotation marks omitted). Ordinarily, an interlocutory order is not immediately appealable.......
  • State v. Payne, No. COA16-1193
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeal of North Carolina (US)
    • November 21, 2017
    ...not mandatory:Upon motion of the defendant and with the consent of the State the [trial] court may conduct a hearing prior to the 808 S.E.2d 488 trial with regard to the defense of insanity at the time of the offense. If the [trial] court determines that the defendant has a valid defense of......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
8 cases
  • Eastpointe Human Servs. v. N.C. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., COA21-264
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeal of North Carolina (US)
    • July 5, 2022
    ...action in order to finally determine the rights of all parties involved in the controversy." Beroth Oil Co. v. N.C. Dep't. of Transp., 256 N.C.App. 401, 410, 808 S.E.2d 488, 496 (2017) (quoting Peterson v. Dillman, 245 N.C.App. 239, 242, 782 S.E.2d 362, 365 (2016)). Generally, a party has n......
  • Johnson v. Johnson, No. COA17-502
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeal of North Carolina (US)
    • June 5, 2018
    ...adequately protected by exception to entry of the interlocutory order." Beroth Oil Co. v. NC Dept. of Transp. , ––– N.C. App. ––––, ––––, 808 S.E.2d 488, 496 (2017) (citation and quotation marks omitted). In the case sub judice , Defendant appeals from an order denying Defendant's motion to......
  • State v. Kinston Charter Academy, No. COA18-688
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeal of North Carolina (US)
    • December 3, 2019
    ...action in order to finally determine the rights of all parties involved in the controversy. Beroth Oil Co. v. N.C. Dep't of Transp ., 256 N.C. App. 401, 410, 808 S.E.2d 488, 496 (2017) (citations and quotation marks omitted). Ordinarily, an interlocutory order is not immediately appealable.......
  • State v. Payne, No. COA16-1193
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeal of North Carolina (US)
    • November 21, 2017
    ...not mandatory:Upon motion of the defendant and with the consent of the State the [trial] court may conduct a hearing prior to the 808 S.E.2d 488 trial with regard to the defense of insanity at the time of the offense. If the [trial] court determines that the defendant has a valid defense of......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT