- 18 -
Payment/Supplement at “$00.00” because the cost of a comparable
replacement exceeded the sum paid for the displacement property.
The revised offer similarly deducted the acquisition cost of
$65,000 from the replacement cost of $99,900 to reach a $34,900
Replacement Housing Payment/Supplement. Hence, subchapter II
authorizes “Replacement Housing for Homeowner”, and the only
amounts designated by these offers as such a Replacement Housing
Payment exclude the $65,000.
Moreover, in eventual resolution of the litigation between
petitioner and the State, the parties stipulated that “Relocation
assistance payment is agreed to be $100,000.00 in addition to the
$65,000.00 previously paid”. Again, the $100,000, and not the
$65,000, is the figure specifically labeled as relocation
assistance.
Taken together, the above documents support a finding that
the relocation assistance in petitioner’s case was in fact the
$100,000 sum negotiated separate and apart from the $65,000
received pursuant to the condemnation judgment. We further note
that to accept petitioner’s characterization of the $65,000 as an
advance payment of her total relocation assistance would be to
say that no just compensation whatsoever was paid by the State.
We believe it highly unlikely that the State would so disregard
an entrenched constitutional mandate.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011