High court hears dispute over whether email fixed a $322,000 eminent‑domain settlement and who must receive the money

Chad Peterson, representing the landowner in Alden Street LLC v. Commissioner of Highways, told the court that the parties had agreed on a single material term — $322,000 — and that later attempts by the condemnor to require funds be routed through the court could not defeat that agreement.

"This is a nullification issue," Peterson said. "If a state agency holds the checkbook and says, we will not settle or we will not pay out unless you agree to have the funds paid to the court, they essentially have nullified a state law." He argued the trial court correctly found a settlement and that the Court of Appeals erred by reversing that determination.

The dispute turns on whether the emails that reflect agreement on the money, but anticipate a written agreement to follow, created a binding settlement. The landowner’s counsel said the parties removed the trial from the docket and released witnesses in reliance on the agreed figure — facts he said demonstrate finality even though a formal contract was not yet signed.

Opposing counsel, Nancy Auth of the Office of the Attorney General, representing the Commissioner of Highways, told the justices the Court of Appeals correctly held there was no settlement because the parties clearly intended to culminate their bargain in a signed writing. "There is a strong presumption that when the parties intend to culminate their agreement with a signed contract, there is no contract unless it is formally signed and in writing," Auth said, urging the court to affirm the appellate ruling.

Auth also framed the statutory question around §25.1‑247.1. She told the court that the statute requires funds to be "payable" to the owner or the owner’s counsel within 30 days of settlement or final determination and argued that "payable" means "capable of being paid," which is distinct from funds actually having been disbursed. Auth said the payment‑into‑court practice protects third‑party claimants and allows the court to clear liens and pay taxes before title becomes indefeasible.

Justices explored multiple legal points: whether the owner‑condemnor parties could lawfully negotiate away statutory protections; whether a written instrument was required to transfer fee simple title; whether the 2022 amendment adding attorney‑fee enforcement altered the analysis; and whether settlements above the statutory monetary threshold implicate gubernatorial approval. Both sides acknowledged the same emails and the same facts but urged different legal consequences.

Peterson emphasized reliance and statutory purpose, while Auth stressed precedent and the presumption against concluding an agreement before a signed writing when the parties intend one. Neither side asked the court to resolve collateral issues (such as governor approval) that were not briefed below. The court heard argument and posed detailed questions to both lawyers; no ruling was announced at argument.

The case will be decided on briefs and the court’s forthcoming opinion will resolve whether the email exchange, together with the parties’ conduct, created a binding settlement and how §25.1‑247.1 applies to settlements conditioned on routing funds through the court.