Source: http://www.mtas.tennessee.edu/print/book/export/html/144078
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 14:18:06+00:00

Document:
The supplementary procedure is a cumulative procedure for the exercise of eminent domain and should be construed in pari materia with the other eminent domain statutes.  This supplementary procedure was designed to protect the property owner by having the amount the condemner believes the property owner is entitled to deposited in court, and when that money has been deposited, to give the condemner the almost immediate right of possession.  This purpose, however, has been largely negated by statutory amendments requiring 30 days notice of filing the condemnation petitions in all eminent domain cases.
If the condemner’s right to take is not questioned , the condemner may take possession of the property 30 days after the notice has been given. T.C.A. § 29-17-903.  If the property owner is satisfied with the amount of the deposit, he or she may withdraw that amount from the court by filing a sworn statement stating that he or she is the owner of the property or property interests described in the petition for condemnation and that he or she accepts the deposit in full settlement for the taking of the property and all damages occasioned to the remainder thereof. T.C.A. § 29-17-904. The court will then enter an order divesting the property owner of title and vesting it in the condemner. T.C.A. § 29-17-904. If the property owner is dissatisfied with the deposit, he or she may file an exception to the amount deposited by the condemner, and a trial before a petit jury may be held on the amount of just compensation due the property owner. T.C.A. § 29-17-905.
 Baker v. Nashville Housing Authority, supra.
 Catlett v. State, 207 Tenn. 1, 336 S.W.2d 8 (1960).
 Kennedy v. City of Chattanooga, supra. v. Thornton, 57 Tenn. App. 127, 415 S.W.2d 884 (1967).
 If the right to take is challenged, the condemner has no right to possession until that issue is resolved. Shelby County v. Armour, 495 S.W.2d 816 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1975). See The Right to Take  for more information.
 In some counties, the court may require the condemner and property owners to appear on a date certain after the expiration of the 30-day period to obtain an order awarding possession to the condemner.
If any person who is a proper party defendant is omitted from the petition for condemnation, the condemner may file amendments to add them. T.C.A. § 29-17-909.
As with the jury of view procedure, notice of the filing of the condemnation proceeding must be given to all defendants. T.C.A. § 29-17-903. This notice must be given at least 30 days before any additional steps are taken in the case by the condemner. T.C.A. § 29-17-903. The constitutional limitations on service by publication that were discussed under the jury of view procedure apply to the supplementary procedure. Service of the notice, accompanied by a copy of the petition for condemnation, can be accomplished in any manner authorized by the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure.
The amount deposited must be based upon an appraisal. The appraisal must value the property considering its highest and best use, its use at the time of the taking, and any other use to which the property is legally adaptable at the time of the taking. The appraiser must be an MAI or an otherwise licensed and qualified appraiser. T.C.A. § 29-17-1004.
 The specification of the amount of damages the condemner believes the property owner is entitled to is not an admission, Kennedy v. City of Chattanooga, supra, and is not relevant at trial. Smith County v. Eatherly, supra.
 State ex rel. Smith v. Overstreet, supra.
[63A] Smith County v. Eatherly, 820 S.W.2d 366 (Tenn. App. 1991).
If the property owner does not appear and accept the amount of the deposit or take exception to the amount of the deposit, the court can enter a default judgment against the property owner. The court will then hold a hearing upon the record and, in the absence of the property owner, determine the amount of just compensation to which the property owner is entitled. T.C.A. § 29-17-907.
If the property owner is dissatisfied with the amount deposited, he or she may file an exception or answer on or before 30 days from the date of notice of filing the petition. T.C.A. §§ 29-17-905 and 29-17-105. The answer must be filed within 30 days of service of the notice. T.C.A. § 29-17-105.
If the property owner files an exception or answer to the amount deposited by the condemner, a trial may be held before the petit jury as in other civil cases. T.C.A. §§ 29-17-905 and 29-17-105. To obtain such a jury trial, the property owner should make a demand for a jury under Rule 38.02 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure, or file a motion for a jury trial under Rule 39.02 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure.  The trial will be limited to determining the amount of compensation to be paid to the defendant for the property or property rights taken. When adverse claims by multiple defendants are made for compensation, the court and jury must also resolve those claims. T.C.A. § 29-17-908.
The defendant who has filed an exception is entitled to withdraw, prior to trial, the amount deposited by the condemner without prejudice to the rights of either party. T.C.A. § 29-17-906.  To withdraw the deposit, the defendant must make a written request to the clerk in which he or she agrees to refund the difference between the amount of the deposit and the final award if the final award is less than the amount of the deposit. T.C.A. § 29-17-906.
If the final award is less than or equal to the amount of the deposit, the defendant must pay the costs of the trial. T.C.A. § 29-17-912. Rule 54.04 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure governs the taxing of any additional costs. In other cases, the condemner is responsible for paying the costs. T.C.A. § 29-17-912.
 If the parties do not demand a jury under Rule 38.02 or file a motion for a jury trial under Rule 39.02, the court may not impanel a jury on its own motion. Smith v. Williams, 575 S.W.2d 503 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1978).
 State ex rel. Moulton v. Burkhart, supra; West Wilson Utility District v. Ligon, 768 S.W.2d 681 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988).
 Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County v. Denson, Docket No. 01-A-01-9005-CV-00174, 1990 WL 154646 (Tenn. Ct. App. M.S. October 17, 1990), app. denied (January 28, 1991).

References: § 29
 § 29
 § 29
 § 29
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 29
 § 29
 § 29
 § 29
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 29
 § 29
 § 29
 § 29
 § 29
 § 29
 § 29
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.