Opinion ID: 2626595
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: 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.

Text: ¶ 8 The Legislative power of the State includes the power of eminent domain. [5] The power of eminent domain is the inherent power of an entity to take private property for public use. [6] The Okla. Const. art. 2, § 24 acts as a limitation on this inherent power by providing that private property may not be taken for public use without just compensation. [7] ¶ 9 Condemnation is a special proceeding recognized as such by the Oklahoma Constitution. [8] Because condemnation is in a procedural category of its own, the legislature has passed special statutes for the just and orderly functioning of the court when hearing these special proceedings. [9] The procedural requirements set forth for condemnation cases in the statutes are reasonable and must be complied with. [10] Condemnation proceedings are begun by one party filing a petition in district court to appoint a commission made up of three disinterested landowners to determine the amount of just compensation. [11] The commission is to inspect the property, assess the just compensation due the landowner, and file a report of its findings with the clerk of the district court. [12] When the condemnor has paid the amount of just compensation set by the commission into the court, the condemnor may enter the property. [13] The date of the condemnor's payment into the court is deemed the date of taking. [14] ¶ 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. [15] A request for jury trial must be filed within sixty days after the filing of the commissioners' report, and the amount of just compensation is then set by a jury in a trial conducted in the same manner as other civil actions. [16] Only a demand for jury trial will raise the issue of damages, and only an objection to the report of the commissioners will raise the issue of the necessity of the taking. [17] ¶ 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. [18] However, the meaning and effect of an instrument filed in court depends on its contents and substance rather than on the form or title given it by the author. [19] ODOT's Motion and Authority for Order Directing Commissioners to Reevaluate Estimate of Just Compensation was properly construed by the trial court as an exception to the report of the commissioners. ¶ 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, [20] and that the thirty day time period for filing an exception to the report of the commissioners is not a true limitations period but merely a time anchored restriction. ¶ 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, 1971 OK 108, 488 P.2d 1256, a condemnation action, the landowner filed a demand for jury trial after the statutory filing period had expired. We held that the trial court erred by failing to sustain the condemnor's motion to strike the landowner's demand for jury trial, finding: This court has consistently held that filing of demand for jury trial is effective only for the period allowed by statute after the filing of the report ... [w]e continue to so hold. [21] Likewise, an exception to the report of the commissioners in a condemnation action is effective only if filed within the thirty day statutory period; otherwise, it is time-barred. If an exception to the report of the commissioners is filed out of time, a trial court is without authority to order or confirm a new appraisement. [22] ¶ 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.