Brief (Ours): N.C. Constitution Requires Owners Be Made Economically Whole, Which Includes Attorneys’ Fees

The question before the North Carolina Court of Appeals in Dep’t of Transportation v. Rite Touch Investments is whether the state constitution’s Law of the Land Clause, N.C. Const. art. I, § 19, permits a property owner who proves the condemnor’s offer of just compensation was constitutionally inadequate to recover attorneys’ fees and costs. Here, the trial court held yes, and NCDOT appealed.

We filed this amicus brief in support of the appellee-owner, arguing that even though the U.S. Supreme Court has limited “just compensation” to compensation only for the property (which does not include the transaction costs of ensuring that the owner actually receives just compensation for the property), the North Carolina Constitution is not so limited.

Here’s the Summary of Argument:

Lofty principles are one thing, reality is another. The North Carolina Constitution promises to indemnify property owners on the target end of the sovereign’s “most awesome grant of power.” Dep’t of Transp. v. Rowe, 353 N.C. 671, 679, 549 S.E.2d 203, 210 (2001) (Law of the Land Clause requires returning the property owner to “the same financial position” he was in before the taking.). But this principle rings hollow when it runs into the reality that condemnors’ offers are often a fraction of the property’s actual value. This puts the owner in an impossible position, forced to choose between two options, neither of which will make him economically whole: (1) go quietly into the night and accept inadequate compensation; or (2) bear the often significant costs necessary to prove what the condemnor should have provided in the first place. Either way, the owner ends up economically worse off than before the taking.

This appeal is an opportunity for this Court to reconcile principle with reality, and to reaffirm that condemnors have special duties of fairness in eminent domain as other courts across the nation have recognized. If the courts accept that it is simply part of the system that property owners are regularly deprived of full indemnity in eminent domain, then the Constitution’s promise is meaningless, and it would be understandable if property owners concluded that real justice may be too elusive—too dear in time, spirit, and resources—to merit standing up for their civil rights.

Stand by for more as the court considers the case.

Brief Amicus Curiae of Pacific Legal Foundation, N.C. Dep’t of Trans. v. Rite Touch Investments, No 26-413 (N.C. App. Sep. 2, 2026)