The North Carolina Supreme Court has issued a significant ruling in the long-running legal battle between the Town of Apex and property owner Beverly Rubin, clarifying the rights of landowners when municipalities use eminent domain for what is later deemed a private purpose. The court’s decision, issued on August 22, 2025, addresses key questions regarding property rights, the availability of injunctive relief, and the proper procedures for resolving disputes over land takings.
The case stems from Apex’s attempt to acquire a sewer easement across Ms. Rubin’s property to benefit a private real estate developer. The court’s ruling reaffirms the fundamental principle that private property can only be taken for public use, with just compensation, as enshrined in the North Carolina Constitution.
The Genesis of the Dispute
In 2010, Ms. Rubin purchased land in a rural Wake County area, near Apex. In 2012, a developer began acquiring land around her property, with plans to build a subdivision called Riley’s Pond. To develop Riley’s Pond, the developer needed sewer service. Ms. Rubin, however, declined to sell the developer an easement across her property for a sewer line.
The developer then persuaded the Town of Apex to use its eminent domain power to acquire a sewer easement across Ms. Rubin’s land. The Town Council approved the taking by a 3-2 vote in March 2015, with the developer agreeing to cover the town’s costs. The town subsequently installed the sewer line in July 2015, using a boring method to avoid surface construction on Ms. Rubin’s property.
Initial Trial Court Ruling and Subsequent Proceedings
Ms. Rubin challenged the taking, arguing it was for a private purpose. In October 2016, the trial court agreed, ruling that Apex’s exercise of eminent domain was invalid because the primary benefit went to the private developer, not the public. The court dismissed the condemnation action.
Apex appealed, but the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal as untimely. This meant the trial court’s ruling, the “Private Purpose Judgment,” became final. The judgment declared Apex’s claim to Ms. Rubin’s property by eminent domain “null and void”.
Even though the judgment was final, the sewer line remained in place. Ms. Rubin then sought to enforce the judgment by asking the court to order Apex to remove the sewer line. Apex, in turn, filed a separate action, claiming it had acquired an easement through “inverse condemnation” due to the installation of the sewer line.
The trial court handled all these motions jointly. The trial court denied Ms. Rubin’s request for the removal of the sewer line, ruling that she should seek compensation through the inverse condemnation action. The court also granted Apex relief from the original judgment, effectively saying it was “moot” because the sewer line was already installed.
The Court of Appeals then addressed the trial court’s orders in two separate opinions (Apex II and Apex III). The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s order granting Apex relief from the judgment, but upheld the denial of Ms. Rubin’s motion to force the removal of the sewer line. As for Apex’s inverse condemnation action, the Court of Appeals ruled that most of Apex’s claims were barred by res judicata.
Both parties then appealed to the North Carolina Supreme Court, which consolidated the cases.
The Supreme Court’s Decision: Key Takeaways
The Supreme Court’s ruling addresses several critical issues:
* Revesting of Title: The court unequivocally held that when a trial court determines an eminent domain taking was for a private purpose, title to the property reverts to the original landowner. In this case, because the taking was deemed for a private purpose, Ms. Rubin retained ownership of her land, free of any easement.
* Inverse Condemnation: The court rejected Apex’s argument that it acquired an easement through inverse condemnation. The court clarified that inverse condemnation is a legal action available when the government takes private property without initiating formal eminent domain proceedings. Since Apex had initiated formal condemnation proceedings, inverse condemnation was not applicable.
* Injunctive Relief: The court affirmed that a trial court has the inherent authority to order mandatory injunctive relief, such as the removal of the sewer line, to remedy a continuing trespass on private property. It stated the trial court erred in concluding it couldn’t order such relief because Ms. Rubin hadn’t specifically requested it in her initial pleadings. However, the court also acknowledged the need to balance the equities.
* Remand for Equitable Weighing: The Supreme Court remanded the case back to the trial court, instructing it to weigh the equities and determine the appropriate remedy. This involves considering factors such as whether Apex acted in good faith, the impact on the homeowners who rely on the sewer line, and the potential for monetary damages versus a mandatory injunction. The trial court must also consider the range of appropriate remedies and damages.
* Dismissal of Inverse Condemnation Action: The Supreme Court vacated the Court of Appeals’ decision regarding Apex’s inverse condemnation declaratory judgment action. It instructed the Court of Appeals to remand to the trial court with instructions to dismiss the action with prejudice.
The Implications of the Ruling
The Supreme Court’s decision has significant implications for property owners and municipalities in North Carolina. It reinforces the constitutional protections against the taking of private property for private benefit and underscores the importance of public purpose in eminent domain proceedings.
The ruling also provides guidance on the remedies available to landowners when their property rights are violated. While the court acknowledged the potential for mandatory injunctive relief, it emphasized the need for a trial court to carefully consider the equities involved before issuing such an order.
The case highlights the complexities of eminent domain disputes and the importance of following proper legal procedures. It serves as a reminder that municipalities must act within the bounds of their authority and that property owners have the right to challenge takings they believe are unlawful.