A Virginia couple who wanted additional compensation for the impact of a highway expansion on their property have lost their legal battle. An appeals court has ruled that they cannot claim losses caused by the wider road project when the government had temporarily acquired only a small section of their land.According to Find Law, Omar Mohammad El-Rashed and Eliana Eyad Albelbaisi owned a home in McLean, Virginia, near Interstate 495 (I-495). In March 2023, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) began proceedings to use a portion of their property temporarily for construction work.The land involved was a narrow strip at the back of their home, covering 1,458 square feet. VDOT offered $29,700 for its temporary use, including compensation for trees and vines. The couple accepted the payment but continued to argue that the amount did not cover the financial impact of the project on their property.Their appraiser, Dennis Gruelle, estimated that the highway expansion and the temporary acquisition together could reduce the property's value by almost $500,000. The couple wanted this estimate considered while determining their compensation.However, the Court of Appeals of Virginia upheld the lower court's decision to exclude the larger damages claim.
Court rejects Virginia couple's claim over highway expansion near their home
A Virginia appeals court has rejected a couple’s claim for additional compensation over an I-495 highway expansion, ruling that they could seek damages only for the temporary easement taken from their property, not losses linked to the wider road project. Their expert had estimated that the project could reduce the property’s value by nearly $500,000.
In brief
A Virginia couple who wanted additional compensation for the impact of a highway expansion on their property have lost their legal battle. In March 2023, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) began proceedings to use a portion of their property temporarily for construction work.The land involved was a narrow strip at the back of their home, covering 1,458 square feet. The couple wanted this estimate considered while determining their compensation.However, the Court of Appeals of Virginia upheld the lower court's decision to exclude the larger damages claim.
This is the opening of the story, shared with credit to The Times of India — World. The rest of the report — with every detail — continues on the publisher’s website.
Continue reading at The Times of India — World ↗
