Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

damagesleaseappellantinverse condemnation
motionsummary judgmentappellantmotion for summary judgment

Related Cases

Peterson v. Neme
View Case »
Araujo v. U.S.
View Case »
Melkonian v. Ashcroft
View Case »
Mitondo v. Mukasey
View Case »
H&H Saguaro Specialists; U.S. v.
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

South Carolina; U.S. v.

Facts

Appellant Applied Building Sciences, Inc. (ABS) was a tenant in a building in Charleston County that was condemned by the South Carolina Department of Commerce, Division of Public Railways for public use. ABS was entitled to just compensation for its leasehold interest and sought reimbursement for reestablishment expenses exceeding $560,000 after relocating its business. Public Railways limited reimbursement to $50,000, leading ABS to assert an inverse condemnation claim, arguing the cap was unconstitutional.

Appellant Applied Building Sciences, Inc. (ABS) is an engineering firm that was a tenant in a building in Charleston County owned by Hibernian Heights, LLC (Landlord). The South Carolina Department of Commerce, Division of Public Railways (Public Railways) condemned the building and the surrounding real property (the Milford Property) for public use.

Issue

Whether the $50,000 cap on reimbursement of reestablishment expenses in condemnation proceedings is unconstitutional under the Takings Clauses of the South Carolina and United States Constitutions.

The primary issue before the circuit court was whether the $50,000 cap is an unconstitutional limitation on the reimbursement of reestablishment expenses.

Rule

Reestablishment expenses are separate from damages awardable as just compensation, and the statutory cap on reimbursement does not violate the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment or the South Carolina Constitution.

South Carolina codified the relocation requirements of the Federal Relocation Act in sections 28-11-10 to -70, mandating relocation payments to displaced persons and businesses regardless of whether a project uses any federal dollars.

Analysis

The court applied the rule by affirming that reestablishment expenses are distinct from just compensation, which is defined as the market value of the property taken. The court referenced previous cases that established that expenses related to relocation are not included in determining just compensation. The court found that the statutory cap was a valid legislative enactment and did not infringe upon constitutional rights.

'South Carolina courts have embraced federal takings jurisprudence as providing the rubric under which we analyze whether an interference with someone's property interests amounts to a constitutional taking.'

Conclusion

The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's decision, holding that the $50,000 cap on reimbursement for reestablishment expenses is constitutional.

Decision affirmed.

Who won?

The South Carolina Department of Commerce, Division of Public Railways prevailed in the case because the court upheld the constitutionality of the $50,000 cap on reimbursement for reestablishment expenses.

The circuit court found the cap constitutional and granted Public Railways' motion for summary judgment.

You must be