Evans v. Smyth-Wythe Airport Com'n
| Decision Date | 09 January 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. 970016,SMYTH-WYTHE,970016 |
| Citation | 255 Va. 69,495 S.E.2d 825 |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
| Parties | Edward H. EVANS, et al. v.AIRPORT COMMISSION. Record |
Stephen M. Hodges, Abingdon (Mark E. Frye; Penn, Stuart & Eskridge, Bristol, on briefs), for appellants.
Pamela Meade Sargent(John S. Bundy; White, Bundy, McElroy, Hodges & Sargent, on brief), Abingdon, for appellee.
Commonwealth of Virginia(Richard Cullen, Attorney General; Richard L. Walton, Jr., Senior Assistant Attorney General; John J. Beall, Jr., Senior Assistant Attorney General, on brief), amicus curiae, in support of appellee.
Present: All the Justices
The narrow issue that we decide in this appeal is whether a judgment, which restricts an airport commission's power of eminent domain, is void.
Pursuant to Code §§ 5.1-31, et seq., the Counties of Smyth and Wythe and the Towns of Marion, Rural Retreat, and Wytheville created the Smyth-Wythe Airport Commission, which operates the Mountain Empire Airport in Smyth County.
In 1981, the Commission initiated condemnation proceedings in the court below against a parcel of property owned by Edward H. and Elizabeth B. Evans.The property is located adjacent to the airport.The Evanses had also filed an action against the Airport Commission which was consolidated by order with the condemnation proceeding.The record in this case does not reveal the nature of the claims that the Evanses asserted in that proceeding.
Subsequently, the Commission and the Evanses reached a settlement, and the court entered a judgment in 1984, which stated in part:
"1.The Smythe Wythe [sic]Joint Airport Commission has agreed, ... that no clear zone easement will be required over the property of Edward H. Evans and Elizabeth B. Evans, so long as it is owned by them....In this regard the eastern end of said runway will not be moved or extended in an easterly direction from its present eastern terminus so long as the Evanses or their children own the property.
...
7.That both parties shall jointly move the Court to dismiss the pending actions herein, including the action of Edward H. Evans and Elizabeth B. Evans, his wife, against the Smyth Wythe Joint Airport Commission and the action of the Smyth Wythe Joint Airport Commission against Edward H. Evans and Elizabeth B. Evans, his wife, with prejudice to all claims and rights that they may have as outlined therein.
8.That the entry of this Order shall be res judicata, as provided by law, as to any further right of the Smyth Wythe Joint Airport Commission to condemn any portion of the Edward H. or Elizabeth B. Evans property located to the east of State Route 681, and to the south of Interstate Highway 81, so long as the same is owned by the Evanses or their children."
In 1996, the Airport Commission instituted this proceeding by filing a motion for declaratory judgment seeking a declaration that the 1984 judgment "which purports to limit the Commission's future right to initiate condemnation proceedings against the [Evanses'] Property is null and void ab initio because the Commission had no authority to voluntarily surrender or relinquish the power of eminent domain granted to it by the General Assembly."The Evanses filed a grounds of defense and a counterclaim.1
After consideration of memoranda submitted by counsel, the 1984 judgment, and oral argument, the trial court entered a declaration that the 1984 judgment "is null and void ab initio to the extent it purports to limit the [Airport Commission's] right to initiate condemnation proceedings or exercise the power of eminent domain over property owned by the [Evanses]."The Evanses appeal.
The Evanses contend that the trial court had inherent power to enter the 1984 judgment which prohibits the Airport Commission from exercising the power of condemnation with regard to their property.We disagree.
Code§§ 5.1-35 and -36 authorize cities, counties and towns to create commissions to operate airports.The General Assembly, in Code§ 5.1-34, has delegated to a city, town, or county the "full power to exercise the right of eminent domain in the acquisition of any lands, easements and privileges which are necessary for airport and landing field purposes."Code§ 5.1-36 enables a city, town, or county to enter into an agreement creating an airport commission which may exercise the power of eminent domain on behalf of the city, town, or county.
We have consistently held that the "power of eminent domain is an essential attribute of sovereignty which, in our system, inheres in the General Assembly."Hamer v. School Bd. of the City of Chesapeake, 240 Va. 66, 70, 393 S.E.2d 623, 626(1990);accordTalbot v. Mass. Life Ins. Co., 177 Va. 443, 448-49, 14 S.E.2d 335, 336(1941);Commonwealth v. Newport News, 158 Va. 521, 545-46, 164 S.E. 689, 696(1932);Wilburn v. Raines, 111 Va. 334, 338, 68 S.E. 993, 995(1910);Painter v. St. Clair, 98 Va. 85, 87, 34 S.E. 989, 990(1900).Additionally, in Commonwealth v. Newport News, we stated the following principle which is equally pertinent here:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jones v. Commonwealth
...could "not lawfully adopt."Singh v. Mooney , 261 Va. 48, 51–52, 541 S.E.2d 549, 551 (2001) (quoting Evans v. Smyth–Wythe Airport Comm'n , 255 Va. 69, 73, 495 S.E.2d 825, 828 (1998) ) (footnote omitted) (emphasis added).As previously explained, "[a] conviction or sentence imposed in violatio......
-
Wright v. Com.
... ... did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter or the parties." Evans v. Smyth-Wythe Airport ... 667 S.E.2d 794 ... Comm'n, 255 Va. 69, 73, ... ...
-
Kelley v. Stamos
...and statutory right to a trial by jury. The trial court was without power to proceed in such a manner. In Evans v. Smyth–Wythe Airport Commission, 255 Va. 69, 495 S.E.2d 825 (1998), we held that the circuit court's order restricting the exercise of the power of eminent domain of an airport ......
-
Collins v. Shepherd
...or because the mode of procedure employed by the court was such as it might not lawfully adopt." See Evans v. Smyth-Wythe Airport Comm'n, 255 Va. 69, 73, 495 S.E.2d 825, 828 (1998); Lapidus v. Lapidus, 226 Va. 575, 579, 311 S.E.2d 786, 788 (1984); Watkins v. Watkins, 220 Va. 1051, 1054, 265......
-
1.2 Statutory Considerations
...2012), aff'd on other grounds, 743 F.3d 438 (4th Cir. 2014).[13] Ruddock, at 561, 178 S.E. at 47.[14] Evans v. Smyth-Wythe Airport Comm'n, 255 Va. 69, 495 S.E.2d 825 (1998).[15] State Hwy. Comm'r v. Hooker Furniture Corp., 214 Va. 137, 198 S.E.2d 649 (1973).[16] Civ. No. 84-0170-R (E.D. Va.......
-
4.4 Possible Objections, Defenses, or Grounds for dismissal
...Va. 716, 101 S.E.2d 527 (1958).[30] See also Town of Purcellville v. Loudoun Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors, 74 Va. Cir. 417 (Loudoun 2007).[31] 255 Va. 69, 495 S.E.2d 825 (1998).[32] Id. at 73, 495 S.E.2d at 827.[33] See Va. Code §§ 15.2-1901, -1901.1.[34] See Va. Code § 15.2-1903.[35] See Va. C......
-
2.1 Introduction
...§ 11.[3] Talbot v. Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co., 177 Va. 443, 448-49, 14 S.E.2d 335, 336 (1941); Evans v. Smyth-Wythe Airport Comm'n, 255 Va. 69, 495 S.E.2d 825 (1998).[4] The Commissioner's title was changed from Commonwealth Transportation Commissioner to Commissioner of Highways by a......