Here's one that we meant to post earlier, but slipped through the cracks.
In Oklahoma eminent domain actions, the issue of valuation is first presented to a board of three commissioners ("disinterested landowners") from the county in which the condemned property is located. The commissioners report to the court, and if one party doesn't care for the recommended compensation, the party may demand a jury trial.
In Independent School District v Taylor, No.110,709 (Nov. 27, 2013), the Oklahoma Court of Appeals held that a jury in such a case is entitled to hear evidence regarding value, even if the commissioners did not consider it. In that case, the commissioners recommended a value, but after a trial, the jury came back in with a higher award after the owner introduced evidence about the value of a billboard lease which had not been presented to the commissioners. The trial court granted the condemnor's request for a new trial because the commissioners had not considered the billboard lease evidence.
Thus, as the court of appeals put it, "[t]he fundamental issue presented is whether, in this condemnation proceeding, the trial court erred by admitting evidence at the jury trial that was neither presented to, nor considered by, the commissioners." Slip op. at 9. The court held it did not:
There is nothing in the statutory procedure preventing evidence relevant to the determination of just compensation from being presented at the jury trial just because it was neither presented to nor considered by the commissioners. The statutory procedure does not require the parties or, in particular, the landowner, to provide the conmmissioners with information, nor does it limit the jury trial to a review of the information provide to an/or considered by the commissioners.Slip op. at 12. It's the commissioners' duty to assess compensation, not a property owner's. The court applied the maxim that eminent domain statutes -- because it is a "forced sale" into which the owner is compelled -- "must be strictly construed in the landowner's favor and against the condemnior." Slip op. at 13.
The court rejected the argument that landowners would use this to sandbag the commissioners in order to get an award of attorneys' fees. In Oklahoma, a court has the discretion to award fees if the jury's award exceeds by 10% the commissioners' valuation. The court noted that where a property owner "strategically withholds inconspicuous damage elements form the commissioners but presents those damage elements at a subsequent jury trial," the trial court "may determine an award of such fees to be inappropriate." Slip op. at 16.
This decision is a good reminder of the place of the jury in determining just compensation, even in those states that use commissioner or similar procedures. This raises a couple of questions. First, what about states like New York, where you cannot get a jury trial in eminent domain? Second, a question that's not quite about juries, but the nature of the court. We're talking about whether the Court of Federal Claims -- an Article I court that sits without a jury -- can be delegated the exclusive power to hear inverse cases against the federal government seeking just compensation. We don't know the answers to those questions, but this case got us to thinking.
Our Owners' Counsel colleague Robert Nichols (isn't that the best name ever for an eminent domain lawyer?) represented the property owner.
Independent School Dist. No. 5 v. Taylor, No. 110,709 (Ok. App. Nov. 27, 2013)
