McNeill v. North Carolina State Highway Commission
Docket: 6916SC188
Court: Court of Appeals of North Carolina; April 30, 1969; North Carolina; State Appellate Court
The North Carolina Court of Appeals addressed whether the plaintiffs, Charles and Margaret McNeill, had property rights that were violated when the North Carolina State Highway Commission permanently removed access to Interstate at Survey Station 131.70. The Commission argued that no property rights were created for the original grantors at Survey Stations 167.73.9 and 131.70, claiming that the access remained via a service road and that references to the survey stations were merely descriptive. However, the court found that these references conveyed definite property rights and eliminated access at any other point, rejecting the Commission's first contention.
The Commission's second argument stated that even if it intended to create property rights, it lacked authority to do so for access points not adjoining the original grantors' property, as defined by N.C. Const. art. 1.7. The Commission maintained that it had not interfered with the original grantors' access rights, as access to the service road remained intact. It also contended that the plaintiffs, not being parties to the right-of-way agreement, had no contractual privity and thus no property rights in the access points.
The court noted that similar right-of-way agreements have been interpreted by the Supreme Court, and acknowledged that the agreements existed before the enactment of G.S. 136-89.52. Referencing the case of Williams v. North Carolina State Highway Commission, it determined that the landowners’ rights of access arising from an agreement constitute property rights. The court affirmed that the Commission's right-of-way, although created by agreement, constituted a property right that was subject to condemnation.
The Commission has the authority to provide monetary compensation or grant specific access rights when purchasing a right-of-way. In *Abdalla v. State Highway Commission*, the Supreme Court recognized that landowners adjacent to highways possess a special easement for access that cannot be removed without just compensation. The case highlighted the common law rights of abutting landowners regarding highway access and noted that these rights could be modified through agreements. The plaintiffs in *Abdalla* initially relinquished their access rights but reserved limited access via service roads and ramps. The Court affirmed that the right of access is an easement appurtenant to the land, allowing the Commission to determine access locations, provided it acts reasonably in consideration of the landowner’s rights.
In *Kenco Petroleum Marketers v. State Highway Commission*, the Court ruled that the Commission could not eliminate a designated access point, which was deemed hazardous, without compensating the landowner for the property right. The agreement in *Kenco* did not include a provision for service roads, contrasting with *Abdalla*, where specific access rights were established. The Supreme Court emphasized that the right of access to the highway is a private property right distinct from public rights.
The Court further clarified that access rights should be interpreted in light of the entire agreement, allowing landowners to depend on language that confers easement rights greater than those of the general public. In *French v. State Highway Commission*, it was stated that stipulating access rights in the agreement implied more than just service road access, encompassing the right to use existing crossovers. Overall, the Court underscored that agreements must be viewed in their entirety, ensuring that landowners understand their retained access rights in exchange for any relinquished claims.
The Commission argued that the landowner had sufficient rights due to access to the service road. This was countered by stating that the parties did not limit their agreement to access solely to the service road. The service road is part of the highway, and the intent behind the Right of Way Agreement extended beyond just access to the service road. A key distinction from a prior case (French v. State Highway Commission) is that in this case, the access points did not directly abut the landowner's property, but this difference does not affect the legal standing. The Commission is not limited to monetary compensation but can also grant a designated right of access. The original grantors gave up direct access to the highway at their property line but received access at specified survey stations instead. The court affirmed Judge Bailey's order and remanded the case to the Superior Court of Robeson County to determine just compensation for any damages resulting from the loss of direct access at Survey Station 131.70, considering changes at Survey Station 167.73.9 in this assessment. The judgment was affirmed with concurrence from Judges Morris and Frank M. Parker.
