State v. 0.09951 Acre of Land

Full title: STATE OF DELAWARE, upon the relation of the Secretary of the Department of…

Court: Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle County

Date published: Jul 11, 2000

C.A. No. 99C-12-178 JEB (Del. Super. Ct. Jul. 11, 2000)

Opinion

C.A. No. 99C-12-178 JEB

Submitted: March 24, 2000

Decided: July 11, 2000

Plaintiffs' Motion to Dismiss Defendant's Counterclaims.

M. Edward Danberg, Esquire, Wilmington, DE, for Plaintiff.

Richard L. Abbott, Esquire, Wilmington, DE, for Defendant.

OPINION

JOHN E. BABIARZ, JR., JUDGE.

I. FACTS

The Plaintiff State of Delaware ("State") brings this action under the power of eminent domain for the taking of private property for public highway use. The property in question is owned by Defendant Chien Chin Wu ("Wu")¹ and is located at 2512 Foulk Road in Brandywine Hundred.

1 Wu has given his wife, Lei Shu Wu, limited powers of attorney for matters in connection with these proceedings. Wu is also referred to as "Dr. Wu" in the defendant's briefs, and therefore he will be referred to as Dr. Wu throughout this opinion.

The State claims authority for the taking under Title 29, Chapter 84, § 8406(1)(a) and Title 17, Chapter 1, § 132 and § 137(a) of the Delaware Code.

The State alleges that the property is needed for the construction and maintenance of a State Highway, that the Secretary for the State Department of Transportation has adjudged the taking necessary and proper, and that just compensation was offered to Dr. Wu in the amount $90,000. The State asserts that it cannot reach an agreement with Dr. Wu on the purchase of the property.

Dr. Wu moves to dismiss the State's complaint based upon a litany of affirmative defenses. Dr. Wu has also filed counterclaims for tortious interference with contractual relations and inverse condemnation

First, Dr. Wu counterclaims for tortious interference with contractual relations, alleging that in February of 1999, he was negotiating a contract for the sale of his property to the owner of the abutting lot, PREIT-RUBIN, for the amount of $170,000. Dr. Wu further avers that DelDOT was aware of this fact, and that "just prior to finalization of the contract . . . DelDOT contacted PREIT-RUBIN and caused them to withdraw the purchase offer to Dr. Wu."

Second, Dr. Wu counterclaims for inverse condemnation, alleging that DelDOT's actions are a "taking" in violation of the Delaware and United States Constitutions, and that he should be awarded compensation for DelDOT's alleged interference with his complete control and dominion over his property.

The State has moved to dismiss Dr. Wu's counterclaims. In the alternative, the State moves to bifurcate the counterclaims pursuant to Superior Court Civil Rule 42(b).

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

In considering a motion to dismiss, the Court must accept as true all allegations contained in the plaintiffs complaint.² The test of sufficiency is whether the plaintiff may recover under any reasonably conceivable set of circumstances susceptible of proof under the complaint.³

2 Plant v. Catalytic Constr. Co., Del. Super., 287 A.2d 682, 686 (1972), aff'd, Del. Supr., 297 A.2d 37 (1972).

3 Spence v. Funk, Del. Supr., 396 A.2d 967, 968, (1978).

III. DISCUSSION

Condemnation proceedings are decided in Superior Court by three citzen commissioners, pursuant to 10 Del. C. § 6108. "There is strong implication in 10 Del. C. § 6107 and § 6108 that the issue of just compensation is the only issue to be decided by the commission."⁴ Dr. Wu's counterclaims seek damages beyond a determination of just compensation for the fair market value of his property. Therefore, the counterclaims are not properly issues to be determined in a condemnation action. They are subject to adjudication in a separate civil action. As such, they are dismissed without prejudice.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED without prejudice .