Land Owner Gets $5 Million In Fight With NCDOT

Extra lanes are seen here under construction on Interstate 95 near the Long Branch Road overpass which reopened to travelers in 2021. DAILY RECORD PHOTO / TONY FEAGIN

By Robert Jordan
Dunn Daily Record

DUNN – Land condemnation and eminent domain sometimes creates severe angst for property owners when their land is condemned and seized by the government for amounts below market value.

One property owner decided to fight when it happened to him and his old hotel on Spring Branch Road in Dunn. Amar Patel, owner of the former Highway Inn at 510 Spring Branch Road, was redeveloping his property for a new hotel when the North Carolina Department of Transportation started eminent domain procedures.

The DOT initially offered Patel $244,825 in exchange for the part of his land it seized for the Interstate 95 widening project, according to Patel’s attorneys George Autry and Jeremy Hopkins of Cranfill Sumner LLP.

Patel argued the land was valued much more and presented evidence from two appraisers suggesting damages in the range of $4,916,209 to $5,251,000 at trial.

After hearing the evidence presented in the six day trial, the jury deliberated for about 50 minutes and awarded Amar Patel $5,084,000.

“Mr. Patel spent years buying and renovating his property,” said Autry. “It is gratifying to have the jury validate that hard work and recognize the damage the Department of Transportation project will have on it.”

“This was about getting Mr. Patel fair value,” added Hopkins.

The property in question borders the Interstate 95 widening project which is projected to be completed in the Pope Road area by 2025.

5 COMMENTS

  1. A rare win for the “little guy.” Anyone who is upset about their home’s re-evaluation really needs to read this story!

  2. Funny I thought imminent domain was only to used for necessary and critically needed development. 95 Highway isn’t so busy that it needs widening, that’s a “wanted” not a “needed” development to start with.

    • Evidently you don’t drive in that section of 95. Not only does it need to be widened but it is also constantly backed up for one reason or another. I’m glad the DOT was forced to properly compensate the individual but there is no denying the need to widen I95.

Comments are closed.