The Washington Supreme Court held that a state statute allowing relocation benefits to property owners displaced by an exercise of eminent domain does not impliedly allow the property owner to recover prejudment interest on the award:
This case involves whether interest is allowable as part of an award of relocation assistance benefits under the relocation assistance—real property acquisition policy (Relocation Act), chapter 8.26 RCW. Division Three of the Court of Appeals held that Union Elevator was entitled to interest on its award of relocation assistance benefits because the Relocation Act impliedly waived the State’s immunity from interest as part of the broad range of financial assistance available under the act. We hold that the Relocation Act cannot reasonably be construed to waive sovereign immunity for interest on relocation assistance awards and reverse the Court of Appeals.
Union Elevator & Warehouse Co. v. State of Washington DOT, No. 83771-6, slip op. at 1-2 (Feb. 17, 2011).
The court first concluded that relocation benefits are awarded via an administrative process and not through a condemnation action and thus are not part of "the same action" as required by an eminent domain statute in which the State waived sovereign immunity. Slip op. at 17. The court also held that relocation benefits are government manna and not part of constitutionally-required just compensation, and thus the relocation benefit statute cannot be read in pari materia with the eminent domain statute (which allows interest). Slip op. at 17 ("Unlike just compensation, which is a constitutionally-mandated award, Union Elevator’s award of relocation assistance is a legislatively-crafted benefit controlled entirely by statute.")
The briefs in the case are posted here (includes video of the recent oral arguments).
