Hampton matriarch sues to try to regain lost land

Just because she's 92 doesn't mean Gladys Auld is ready to give up fighting for what she thinks is right.

As far as she is concerned, suing Hampton officials over land the municipality obtained from her family through eminent domain last year is a battle worth waging.

"More than anything, I'm doing this because I want the citizens here to know that the people running things in this town were not on the up-and-up when they took the property that's been in my family for a century," she said.

At issue, her lawyer said, is whether the municipality acted properly when it used eminent domain to acquire 4 acres at Route 8 and Duncan Avenue for a flood-control project.

Between 1907-98, the Auld family operated a lumber yard and hardware store out of some of the buildings and leased the rest. The business was started when Auld's father rented a shed from a blacksmith to sell lumber that he bought when a train derailed and dumped its load nearby.

Municipal officials said they cannot comment on Auld's allegations because of the pending litigation. Jeff Hollowood, a lawyer representing the municipality, said council followed proper legal procedures and paid fair-market value for the property.

"The fact is, the time is long past for filing a challenge to this taking (by eminent domain)," said Hollowood, noting that the family had 30 days to submit a court challenge. The township obtained the property in December 2008.

The disputed property is at the confluence of Gordhead Run and Little Pine Creek and was subject to flooding in 2004 caused by remnants of Hurricane Ivan.

Auld contends the property is worth considerably more than the $285,000 the municipality paid.

"We turned down an offer for $5 million for that land," she said. "But it's not about the money. If it was, we would have taken it."

The Auld family's lawyer, Noah Fardo, said the lawsuit was not filed until fall 2009 because there was "a significant delay from the municipality in supplying documents that were requested for the case."

"Gladys started asking for paperwork in December 2008 but only got what we needed in November 2009, and it only came after filing an open records request," Fardo said.

Hollowood said the municipality used a professional appraiser to determine how much the property is worth. He said the Auld family did not provide a counter appraisal.

"The other side of this is that it would be extremely irresponsible for officials to pay millions of dollars in taxpayer money for a property that an appraiser said is only worth several hundred thousand dollars," Hollowood said.

In addition to questioning the amount paid to the Auld family, Fardo filed a lawsuit in the fall contending the municipality violated the state open meeting law, commonly called the Sunshine Act, when it acquired the Auld property.

A court hearing is scheduled for late April to determine the fair-market value of the property at the time it was acquired by the municipality. No date has been set for the Sunshine Act lawsuit.

"It's our position that they (municipal officials) violated the Sunshine Act because they should have discussed this matter in public," he said. "But instead, they held secret meetings because they had ulterior motives. They wanted that property so they could tear down buildings they felt were an eyesore at the entrance to the town."

Hollowood declined to comment on Fardo's claims, saying "that's for the courts to decide."

Auld said the potential revenue from renting out the property should be factored into a commercial property's value. At the time the property was taken, flood damage to the buildings was being repaired so they could be leased, she said.

After obtaining the land, the municipality demolished most of the structures in preparation for a multimillion-dollar project recommended by the state Department of Environmental Protection to reduce flooding in the area.