Opinion ID: 2804699
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: ODOT’s Arguments Waived

Text: ODOT’s arguments that it was entitled to the $190,636.81 or an order from the district court directing that Crow make payment to ODOT are not properly before this court. ODOT did not file a cross-appeal from the district court’s decision and, thus, waived any challenge to the district court’s order of disbursement. See Trigalet v. Young, 54 F.3d 645, 647 n.3 (10th Cir. 1995) (holding that court lacked jurisdiction to consider issue when party did not file a cross-appeal); see also Mass. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Ludwig, 426 U.S. 479, 480-81 (1976) (per curiam) (holding a party may not seek to enlarge its own rights or lessen the rights of its adversary absent a cross-appeal). C. Arvest’s Arguments Regarding Distribution of Remaining Funds Arvest argues (1) it was entitled to the entire $190,636.81 because it was the first priority lienholder as of the date of the taking—when ODOT deposited funds into the court in March 2010 based on the first commissioners’ award; (2) Oklahoma condemnation law does not provide for two commissioners’ awards; and (3) the April 26, 2012 order requiring the parties to repay and re-deposit the funds disbursed in March 2010 should be reversed to avoid unjust enrichment to the SBA and ODOT. “[W]e review the district court’s interpretation and determination of state law de novo.” Berry & Murphy, P.C. v. Carolina Cas. Ins. Co., 586 F.3d 803, 808 (10th Cir. 2009). -9-
First, Arvest argues it was the first lienholder on the effective date of the taking—in March 2010—when ODOT paid into the court the amount of just compensation set by the first commissioners’ report. It contends the later repayment of the disbursement monies cannot operate to change its priority rights as of the date of the taking. Arvest further asserts it was statutorily obligated to release the lien after the March 2010 disbursement under Okla. Stat. tit. 46, § 15(A), which states: “[a]ny mortgage on real estate shall be released by the holder of any such mortgage within fifty (50) days of the payment of the debt secured by the mortgage,” subject to a penalty of up to $100 per day for failure to release the mortgage. Id. It argues the SBA should not be allowed to take priority over Arvest’s lien by virtue of ignoring its own obligation under § 15(A) to release its lien. Arvest’s argument ignores relevant Oklahoma law. The commissioners’ assessment of just compensation is just that – an assessment; it is superseded by any subsequent jury verdict, which sets the final damage award. Garnett, 296 P.2d at 767; Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 5, 324 P.3d at 422; Okla. Stat. tit. 69, § 1203(e)(1) (“[E]ither party may within sixty (60) days after the filing of [the commissioners’] report file with the clerk a written demand for a trial by jury, in which case the amount of damages shall be assessed by a jury.”). Indeed, “where a demand is made for a jury trial in a condemnation proceeding, the award made by the commissioners is not competent evidence to go before the jury,” Taylor, 324 P.3d at 422, and “[t]he Commissioners’ award will no longer be relevant when superseded by the - 10 - jury’s verdict,” Okla. ex rel. Dep’t of Transp. v. Mehta, 180 P.3d 1214, 1220 (Okla. Civ. App. 2008). A party having an interest in the condemned property can immediately receive the preliminary award based on the commissioners’ assessment, but it does so “subject to the right of either party to prosecute further proceedings concerning the sufficiency or insufficiency of the award.” Okla. ex rel. Dep’t of Transp. v. Pendergraft, 919 P.2d 451, 453 (Okla. 1996) (internal quotation marks omitted). The March 2010 order disbursing the funds stated the disbursement was not the final determination of just compensation and did not act as waiver of the parties’ right to contest the amount of just compensation or to request a jury trial. Aplt. App. at 102. Arvest cites no Oklahoma law stating it cannot lose its lien position even if it releases its lien before the final damage award. Oklahoma law suggests otherwise. The Oklahoma Supreme Court has ruled that “if a mortgagee opts to have the commissioners’ preliminary award paid directly to him – rather than simply having his mortgage declared a lien on an award – then the mortgagee remains subject to . . . the right of the condemning authority to seek a judicial determination of the sufficiency or insufficiency of the award.” Pendergraft, 919 P.2d at 453. Further, as the district court ruled, a mortgagee can refuse to release a lien without penalty under § 15(A) when it has a good-faith belief there are substantial grounds for contesting that repayment has been made. See Grissom v. Dye, 269 P.2d 367, 370-71 (Okla. 1953) (holding there must be a clear showing of bad faith to seek a penalty under § 15(A)). Based on Oklahoma’s statutory condemnation statutes and - 11 - case law holding that distribution of a preliminary award is not the final damage award and that a mortgage holder might be required to return any excess funds, Arvest had a good faith legal justification to assert it had no assurance it had received payment in full from Crow when it received the March 2010 distribution.
Arvest argues the district court erred in ordering the parties to repay and redeposit the monies disbursed in March 2010 because Oklahoma condemnation statutes only contemplate one commission’s award. Arvest states that Oklahoma courts strictly adhere to the statutory condemnation proceedings and argues if Oklahoma’s legislature had intended to allow for multiple commission awards, it would have said so. Contrary to Arvest’s assertion, Oklahoma’s condemnation law does allow for the possibility of a court ordering a new or supplemental commissioners’ report. See Okla. Stat. tit. 69, § 1203(e)(1) (A new appraisal should be ordered “as right and justice may require . . . on good cause shown.”); Garnett, 296 P.2d at 767 (holding it was not error for the court to order a supplemental commissioners’ report). Here, based on the original petition, the court initially asked the commissioners to value a taking of 1.88 acres; then, after the amended complaint was filed, to value a 5.16 acre taking; and then, after the second amended complaint was filed, without objection by any party, and while a jury trial was pending, to value the original 1.88 acre taking. Cf. Garnett, 296 P.2d at 767 (“The original report and the supplemental report made one complete report covering the property they were directed to value in the first - 12 - instance.”). We find no support for Arvest’s assertion this was contrary to Oklahoma condemnation law.
Finally, Arvest argues the order mandating repayment of the first award should be reversed to prevent unjust enrichment in favor of SBA and ODOT. It asserts that ODOT made a business decision to condemn the whole 5.16 acre parcel, voluntarily deposited the amount of the estimated damage award based on the first commissioners’ report, and should not be allowed to gain title to the property at a loss to Arvest. We find no basis for equitable relief. ODOT acted in accordance with Oklahoma’s policy to compensate property owners as soon as possible for a taking by depositing funds in court based on the first commissioners’ report. Arvest chose to take an immediate distribution and chose to release its lien when it was clear the distribution was subject to challenge and revision. Arvest consented when ODOT filed its second amended complaint, and it did not disclose to the court it had released its lien. Arvest lost its first priority position through its own actions. “[E]quity may not be invoked when its aid becomes necessary through a party’s own fault, and its effect is to allow plaintiffs to escape from circumstances created by their own acts.” Credithrift of Am., Inc. v. Amsbaugh, 773 P.2d 1287, 1289 (Okla. 1988).