Opinion ID: 2630700
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Eminent Domain Generally

Text: The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. Compensation is in the form of indemnity and the general rule is that an owner is to be put in as good a position as he would have occupied if his property had not been taken. 8A Nichols on Eminent Domain § 16.01[1] (3rd ed. 2005). A condemnation proceeding in Kansas is governed by the Kansas Eminent Domain Procedure Act, K.S.A. 26-501 et seq. (the Act). The Act provides for bifurcated proceedings in determining compensation. First, appraisers determine the amount of the award. Under the `undivided fee rule' followed in Kansas, the total award for the condemned property is determined in the first proceeding, without consideration of the competing demands of the various holders of interests in the land. City of Overland Park v. Dale F. Jenkins Revocable Trust, 263 Kan. 470, 472, 949 P.2d 1115 (1997). Thereafter, the parties in interest divide the award among themselves. However, if various parties in interest cannot agree among themselves as to the division of that award, the court allocates the award pursuant to K.S.A. 26-517. [Citation omitted.] 263 Kan. at 472. In its trial brief, BCB had acknowledged that the Lease Agreement contained a condemnation clause, Article 14.00, which governs the subsequent apportionment of BCB's interest as between BCB and Payless. Nevertheless, BCB maintained that Payless was only entitled to the fair market value of its unexpired leasehold interest. BCB provided alternative theories for relief: (1) regardless of a condemnation clause to the contrary, lost profits are never recoverable in Kansas condemnation actions; and (2) even if lost profits are recoverable, the appraisers' award did not expressly designate a portion of the award for such loss as required under Section 14.03. After losing on both issues at the district court level, BCB again argues that lost profits do not constitute real property damages. In the alternative, it alleges that lost profits are only allowable if they are intrinsically related to the land. BCB fails to raise, however, its previous argument that the appraisers must designate a portion of the award for loss of profits in order for them to be recoverable. That issue is therefore deemed abandoned. See McGinley v. Bank of America, N.A., 279 Kan. 426, 444, 109 P.3d 1146 (2005). Instead, BCB asserts for the first time that the district court had no jurisdiction to award Payless damages for lost profits. Jurisdiction may be raised for the first time on appeal. See Mid-Continent Specialists, Inc., v. Capital Homes, L.C., 279 Kan. 178, Syl. ¶ 2, 106 P.3d 483 (2005). Payless responds that Section 14.03 governs the disposition of the award. It argues that under that section's unambiguous language, it was entitled to lost profits.