Title: STATE ex rel. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION v. PERDUE
Citation: 2008 OK 103, 204 P.3d 1279
Docket Number: 
State: Oklahoma
Issuer: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Date: December 9, 2008

STATE ex rel. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION v. PERDUE Annotate this Case STATE ex rel. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION v. PERDUE 2008 OK 103 204 P.3d 1279 Case Number: 105297 Decided: 12/09/2008 THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA STATE OF OKLAHOMA, ex rel. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. CHARLES G. PERDUE and LINDA SHARON PERDUE, Husband and Wife, Defendants/Appellants, and CENTRAL NATIONAL BANK, Poteau, Oklahoma; and the LEFLORE COUNTY TREASURER, Defendants. CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS, DIVISION III Honorable Ted A. Knight, Trial Judge ¶0 On July 2, 2004, the Oklahoma Department of Transportation (ODOT) sought to condemn two pieces of property owned by Charles and Linda Perdue (appellants) in order to widen a highway. On May 3, 2005, the commissioners estimated just compensation at $9,500. Both parties requested a jury trial. On January 31, 2007, ODOT filed a motion asking the court to reconvene the commissioners for a new appraisement. The appellants objected on the grounds that the motion was: 1) in a form not authorized by statute; 2) filed out of time; and 3) an unlawful attempt to evade an award of fees mandated by condemnation statutes. The trial court granted the motion, and the commissioners filed an amended report estimating just compensation at $42,800. The appellants filed an exception to the report of the commissioners, and after the trial court confirmed the commissioners' report, they filed an interlocutory appeal. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed. On certiorari, we hold that because ODOT's motion was filed beyond the statutory period, the trial court was without authority to confirm the amended report. CERTIORARI PREVIOUSLY GRANTED; COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OPINION VACATED; TRIAL COURT REVERSED AND CAUSE REMANDED. Barry K. Roberts, Norman, Oklahoma, for Plaintiff/Appellee. K. Ellis Ritchie, Ryan M. Roberts, Pryor, Oklahoma, for Defendants/Appellants. KAUGER, J.: ¶1 The issue presented is whether the trial court erred by confirming the amended report of the commissioners, despite the fact that ODOT filed an exception requesting the amended report nearly two years after the statutory filing period had expired. We hold that it did. FACTS ¶2 On July 2, 2004, the Oklahoma Department of Transportation (ODOT) filed a petition to condemn two parcels of real property, about one and a half acres in total, along U.S. Highway 59 in LeFlore County in order to widen the highway. The property was owned by Charles G. Perdue and Linda Sharon Perdue (appellants/Perdues). On August 12, 2004, three commissioners were appointed and instructed. The commissioners filed their first report on March 3, 2005, estimating just compensation to be $9,500. ¶3 By statute, if a jury's award exceeds the commission's award by at least ten percent, the landowner is entitled to reasonable attorney, appraisal, engineering, and expert witness fees actually incurred. ¶4 In the course of construction, it became necessary to move the utilities 300 feet farther than originally planned. This created two new expenses of which neither party had been aware at the time of the first commissioners' report: 1) a house near the north parcel had to be converted to use bottled propane because a gas line had been cut and the gas company would not replace the line; and 2) three water gaps had to be cut. ¶5 On January 31, 2007, nearly two years after the commission filed its report, ODOT filed a motion to direct the commissioners to re-evaluate the estimate of just compensation based on the new expenses. A jury trial had not been conducted at this time. The Perdues objected to the request on the grounds that the motion was: 1) a form of pleading not permitted by statute; 2) filed nearly two years out of time; and 3) an unfair attempt to avoid an award of fees and costs by seeking a higher commissioners' award on the eve of the jury trial. ¶6 The commissioners reconvened and, on August 3, 2007, filed a second report that adjusted the compensation to $42,800. On August 13, 2007, ODOT filed a demand for jury trial on the second report. The Perdues did not demand a jury trial on the second report, but instead, on August 21, 2007, filed an exception to the amended report of the commissioners. After a hearing, the trial court denied the Perdues' exception and confirmed the amended report of the commissioners on October 22, 2007, finding that ODOT had shown good cause why the commissioners should be reinstructed and holding that the commission had faithfully performed its duties. ¶7 Before a jury trial could be conducted, the Perdues filed an interlocutory appeal on November 21, 2007. In an opinion promulgated on August 8, 2008, the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed, holding that a trial court may order a supplemental report from commissioners upon good cause shown. BECAUSE ODOT FILED ITS EXCEPTION TO THE REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS AFTER THE STATUTORY PERIOD FOR FILING AN EXCEPTION TO THE REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS HAD EXPIRED, THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY CONFIRMING A NEW APPRAISEMENT. ¶8 The Legislative power of the State includes the power of eminent domain. ¶9 Condemnation is a special proceeding recognized as such by the Oklahoma Constitution. ¶10 If either party objects to the findings of the commission, the party may file an exception to the report of the commissioners or a request for jury trial. An exception to the report of the commissioners must be filed within thirty days after the filing of the commissioners' report, and the court must confirm or reject the report, or if good cause is shown, order a new report from the commission. ¶11 The Perdues' first argument is that ODOT's January 31, 2007 motion styled "Motion and Authority for Order Directing Commissioners to Re-evaluate Estimate of Just Compensation" was not a motion permitted by the statutory framework for condemnation proceedings. A petition, a demand for jury trial, and an objection to the report of the commissioners are the only three pleadings authorized by statute in condemnation proceedings. ¶12 The Perdues' second argument is that because ODOT filed its exception to the report of the commissioners nearly two years after the thirty day filing period had run, the trial court erred by ordering a new appraisement. ODOT argues that a trial court may order a new appraisement as right and justice may require on good cause shown, ¶13 Although this Court has never explicitly considered whether the time period to file an exception to the report of the commissioners in a condemnation proceeding is a time anchored restriction, we have held that a demand for jury trial in a condemnation proceeding is effective only for the sixty day statutory period. ¶14 In Transok Pipeline Co. v. Adams, ¶15 It is undisputed that ODOT filed an exception to the report of the commissioners almost twenty-two months after the statutory period had expired. The trial court was without authority to order a new appraisement by the commissioners or to confirm the amended appraisement. CONCLUSION ¶16 According to the procedural requirements for condemnation cases, the commissioners are to make an award of just compensation. If a party objects, it has sixty days to make the decision whether to go to the time and expense of requesting a jury trial. The fee award provisions are a major factor in this decision, and entitlement to a fee award is based solely on a comparison of the commissioners' award with the jury's award. The thirty day period for filing an exception allows a landowner to have a final award from the commission before taking a calculated risk that a jury will return a greater award. ¶17 ODOT places great emphasis on the fact that expenses unknown to either party arose after the commissioners' first report, but before a jury trial could be conducted. This is not uncommon in condemnation proceedings. The process of construction can be unpredictable, and unanticipated expenses may arise, just as some anticipated damages may not occur. ¶18 ODOT filed its exception to the commissioners' report well after the thirty day filing period set by statute had expired. The trial court erred by confirming the amended report of the commissioners. The decision of the trial court is reversed, the Court of Civil Appeals opinion is vacated, and the cause is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion. CERTIORARI PREVIOUSLY GRANTED; COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OPINION VACATED; TRIAL COURT REVERSED AND CAUSE REMANDED. ALL JUSTICES CONCUR. FOOT