The Chesapeake Airport Authority will appeal a 2007 circuit court ruling that would allow neighboring homeowners to seek compensation for property “damaged’’ by air traffic.
The authority filed a notice of appeal this month in a civil action brought by George and Margaret Osipovs, the lead plaintiffs in a dispute involving 12 other companion cases against the airport. The appeal will challenge Circuit Judge Randy Smith’s ruling that the Osipovs’ property was damaged without just compensation by the airport.
The Osipovses and other homeowners at West Landing Estates sued the airport in 2004 over low flights they contend destroyed the tranquil, rural atmosphere of their community. The plaintiffs’ subdivision, built in the early 1990s, sits about a mile and a half from the end of the airport’s runway.
Residents said increased flights caused cracks in walls and broken window seals. They said fluid leaked onto their property from planes flying overhead.
Smith’s ruling called for the Osipovses, if not compensated, to be heard by a jury of fellow city landowners to determine just compensation.
The state constitution forbids the General Assembly from passing any law whereby private property is “taken’’ or “damaged’’ for public uses, without just compensation.
Smith found that the property was “damaged,’’ by the airport, but not “taken’’ or deprived of all economic use. The airport, opened in 1978, sits off of West Road in southern Chesapeake.
The authority has spent $178,587 in legal fees since 2006 defending against the civil action, according to Joe Love, manager of the Chesapeake Regional Airport.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Upload Your Video
iTunes Podcast
Video Feeds
Watch The Dot
I live there
I live in West Landing Estates and am one of the neighbors not in this frivolous lawsuit. There are just as many not suing as there are suing. There is an occassional plane - big deal - I use to live off Mt. Pleasant with much more noise. The neighborhood is actually over 2 miles away.
I love living here - it's nice and quiet. The frogs and weedeaters make more noise. If my neighbors are so utterly miserable here, then pack up and leave and hopefully we'll get someone in here who enjoys this neighborhood like I do. Just a total waste of money.
More Nonsense from our Courts
Anyone with common sense can see that this suit had no justification. So why didn’t Judge Smith? This is a perfect example of what happens when politicians choose judges. You get people who aren’t competent. His only qualifications must have been the donations he made to their political campaigns. Hopefully the GA will correct this mistake like they did with Judge Griffith.
help me mr government. While
help me mr government. While walking across the park to find a spot for a picnic. I saw this giant bee hive, so I decided it was my park so I chose to sit down right next to the beehive and proceeded to have a very nice picnic.
Yes, Yes, its true. Noone was stung. but they annoyed me.
I want damages.
Not hard
Better hope I am not on the jury, I am a Chesapeake landowner in Great Bridge and airplanes fly over my home all the time. This case is ridiculous. First off, the airport did not "damage" the homes, the airplanes did. Second, the airport was BUILT over 10 years before the neighborhood. The runway extension was built in 1999. If I were on the jury I would give the plaintiffs NOTHING and require the plaintiffs to reimburse the Airport authority their legal fees.
The article did not mention the main party in this case bought the home in question in 2001 for $246,600 and sold the same home in 2006 for over $500,000.
Hmmmmmmm, hmm, let's see,
Hmmmmmmm, hmm, let's see, how long has Oceana been there??? Wasn't it there before all the developments were?? Yup, seems they have learned from the Virginia Beach crowd.
Damage from planes?
Wow! I was not aware we were launching space shuttles in Chesapeake! Are these people idiots? I am thinking so...
Wow
Basically to some up the entire article.
"A fool and his money is soon parted."
Fools.
So, let me get this straight...
...people buy a house at the end of an airport runway in a neighborhood that is 15 years old, yet the airport (which I've flown out of PRIOR to those houses being built) is 30 years old?
Guess the term caveat emptor is something they aren’t aware of.
Then again, they, like most Americans these days, SUE, SUE, SUE anytime they are inconvenienced! Maybe they should sue the realtor for non-disclosure or the city for approving the building of the housing. Or just maybe they should realize they screwed up buying a house at the end of an airport runway.
Anyway, good luck proving your case in court. With the shoddy construction in this area, I doubt you can prove an airplane caused this damage and I'd love to know how you know fluids are coming from airplanes.
Forest Gump (or was it his mama) said it best...
Here we go again
Airport built in rural Chesapeake in 1978. 13+ years later, developer builds neighborhood encroaching upon and in the flight path of the airport. Residents in 2004 complain the airport (a fixed structure 1.5 miles away) has damaged their property. Judge agrees. Now airport has to pay for damages caused by planes that don't belong to the airport? Is not the developer also responsible for building under the flight path and exposing the houses to potential (and now real) damage? Are the residents also responsible for buying a home under the flight path, and thus assuming the risk of damage?
Taking lessons from Virginia Beach, are you?