1989

Bartz v. Bd. of Supervisors

Supreme Court of Virginia

237 Va. 669, 379 S.E.2d 356

Board of Supervisors of Fairfax County sought to condemn two adjoining parcels of land. At trial, panel of commissioners set compensation at $13,189,232 by report dated March 27, 1987. By order dated May 22, 1987, trial court confirmed award and ordered interest at 8% from date of order until paid. Four days later, County paid award plus $11,000, which represented four days interest. On appeal, landowners asserted County took land on September 3, 1986, but did not pay for it until eight months later. They said that failure to award interest for that eight months violated just compensation requirement of Article 1, § 11 of the Constitution of Virginia. County argued it took property on date award was paid, that landowners were fully and timely paid, and that trial court erred on any interest, as award paid within sixty days as provided by statute in effect at that time. Supreme Court held that without further interference with owner’s right to use and dispose of land, filing of condemnation proceedings and filing of lis pendens did not constitute taking of property requiring just compensation under the Virginia Constitution. Also, potential diminution in value due to pendency of the proceedings did not constitute compensable damage to the property. The County took the property on May 26th, the day legal title passed. Interest on an award is appropriate when the owner does not have the money award, and has neither control nor use of the property. Interest, as part of just compensation, was appropriate only when the compensation funds were not yet available to the landowner and the property has been taken or damaged. Therefore, there was no statutory or constitutional basis for the trial court to require any interest by the County on the compensation award. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and final judgment.

Dissent by Justices Russell and Whiting, stating that since 1799, the allowance of interest in a proper case is natural justice, and prejudgment interest would help compensate the owners for the appreciation in value they lost in this case.

Back to Case Finder Main Page
Volume One Indexes:
To Case Name Index
To Topic Index
To Date Index
To Code Section Index