This page uses extracted PDF text. Text can misread numbers, dates or table columns. Check the PDF before quoting or interpreting it. Redacted areas remain redacted.
Ann. § 8.01-187. All the claims sought damages for the demolition of the house. In later
briefing, Fox claimed that the property was not a public nuisance, that the city pretextually
demolished it as a nuisance to increase its tax base and that the city failed to properly notify
him of the nuisance determination and the demolition.
After discovery, both Fox and the city moved for summary judgment. The district
court granted the city’s motion and denied Fox’s. See D.A. Realestate Inv., LLC v. City of
Norfolk, 2023 WL 2637382, at *1 (E.D. Va. Mar. 23, 2023) (DARI I). The court ruled that
since Fox did not file his lawsuit until almost three years after the demotion of the house,
the federal constitutional claims were barred by the applicable two-year statute of
limitations. Id. at *4–6, 9–10. The court rejected Fox’s argument that the SCRA required
reopening the city’s nuisance determination because the SCRA only offers relief from a
“default judgment” in a “civil action or proceeding.” Id. at *8. To address Fox’s state-law
takings claim, the court examined Virginia law authorizing non-compensable nuisance
abatement under the police power. Id. at *12–14. It also explained that for compensable
eminent domain, Virginia law identifies “elimination of blight” as a public use and partly
defines “blighted property” as a “public nuisance.” See Va. Code Ann. § 1-219.1(A)-(B).
Thus, the court held that either the property was a nuisance, and the city properly abated it
without compensation; or it was not a nuisance—and thus not blight. Either way, Fox could
not demonstrate the city’s public use, a necessary element of an inverse condemnation
claim. See id. The court explained that Fox had other remedies for an improper abatement
or an improper exercise of eminent domain. Fox could have brought a timely due process
8Jump to an indexed page (18 of 18)