The judge went to UVA undergrad and UVA law school, which is a top-five law school. He is certainly competent. The lawyers are all well-known Virginia lawyers from prestigious firms.
This case was not about structures. It was about property rights. The core issue was whether the ferry company has the right to use the property.
That said, there was a structure involved as a tangential issue. The licensing agreement that terminated in 2004 provided that the ferry company needed to obtain approval from the landowner before building any structures. Yet it built a retaining wall without getting consent. That was the reason for the $100k judgment against the ferry company. The judge agreed that it would cost $100k to remove the illegally built structure and awarded that amount to the landowner.
I'm guessing you're not a lawyer. I'm a lawyer experienced in real estate matters. That doesn't necessarily make me right, but I am able to view this as someone with over thirty years of real estate law practice. After studying the decision, I think the judge got it right. As I've previously mentioned, conservatives should welcome the decision because it was in support of private property rights.
If all the judge did was rule that the ferry company had to remove the wall, then the judge was not unreasonable.
But as I read the original story I got from it that he ruled that they could not use the landing area at all unless they settled with the land owner on the landowner’s terms.
And if the deed is faulty, the landowner’s terms do not matter and the only discussion should be how to resolve the matter of the retaining wall.
Since you are a real estate lawyer: Is the deed faulty?
Is there a state maintained road ending at the ferry landing?
Does the farm owner’s deed reference the road right of way?