Here's a short one from the Kansas Supreme Court. In Kansas Fire and Safety Equipment v. City of Topeka, No. 123,063 (June 30, 2023), the court concluded that the requirements of the Kansas Relocation Act do not give rise to a private right of action, and that relocation costs are not a component of just compensation.
We're not going to dwell on the decision too much, since it is limited to Kansas law. But here are your highlights:
- "Kansas Fire and Safety Equipment, Hal G. Richardson d/b/a Bueno Foods Brand and Topeka Vinyl Top, and Minuteman Solar Film (the tenants), were forced to relocate when the City of Topeka (the City) bought the real property the tenants leased for their business operations. The tenants alleged that the property was acquired before a condemnation action. And they sued the City to recover relocation expenses in an action filed directly with the district court under the [Eminent Domain Act]." Slip op. at 4.
- "Ultimately, we hold that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the tenants' petition. The EDPA neither provides a private right of action to recover relocation benefits nor authorizes judicial review of relocation-benefit determinations in eminent-domain appeals. In contrast, the KRA [Kansas Relocation Act] does provide an administrative remedy to vindicate the statutory right to relocation benefits. And once the administrative appeal is completed, the KRA also authorizes district court review of the hearing examiner's ruling. But the tenants' failure to exhaust this administrative remedy deprived the district court of subject matter jurisdiction under the KRA. Slip op. at 4-5.
Kansas Fire and Safety Equip. v. City of Topeka, No. 123,063 (Kan. June 30, 2023)
