Ark. Code Ann. § 18-15-307 (2026)
Compensation for and possession of property
- As soon as the amount of compensation that may be due to the owners of the property taken, or to any of them, shall have been ascertained by the jury, the court shall make such order as to its payment or deposit as shall be deemed right and proper in respect to the time and place of payment and the proportion to which each owner is entitled and may require adverse claimants of any part of the money or property to interplead, so as to fully settle and determine their rights and interests according to equity and justice.
- The court may direct the time and manner in which possession of the property condemned shall be taken or delivered and may, if necessary, enforce any order giving possession.
- The costs occasioned by the assessment shall be paid by the corporation, and, as to the other costs which may arise, they shall be charged or taxed as the court may direct.
-
- No delay in making an assessment of compensation or in taking possession shall be occasioned by any doubt which may arise as to ownership of the property, or any part thereof, or as to the interests of the respective owners.
- However, in cases in which ownership of the property is doubted, the court shall require a deposit of the money allowed as compensation for the whole property in dispute.
- In all cases, as soon as the corporation has paid the compensation assessed or secured the payment by a deposit of money under the order of the court, possession of the property may be taken and the public work or improvement progress.
History. Acts 1875, No. 1, § 75, p. 1; C. & M. Dig., §§ 4017-4019; Pope's Dig., §§ 5019-5021; A.S.A. 1947, § 35-906.
Case Notes
Attorney's Fees.
Trial court erred in awarding attorney's fees to a condemnee in a city's condemnation proceeding because attorney's fees are not expressly provided for in subsection (c) of this section. City of Benton v. Alcoa Rd. Storage, 2017 Ark. 78, 513 S.W.3d 259 (2017).
Circuit court did not err in denying property owners' motion for attorney's fees and expert witness fees because the Supreme Court had determined that attorney's fees and expert-witness fees were not recoverable under subsection (c) of this section, and the Court of Appeals was bound by that determination. Brown v. City of Bryant, 2017 Ark. App. 239, 520 S.W.3d 287 (2017).
Costs.
Deposition fee and the court-reporter fee (for the deposition) were not taxable as costs under this section because expert-witness fees and deposition expenses were not authorized by statute or rule. Brown v. City of Bryant, 2017 Ark. App. 239, 520 S.W.3d 287 (2017).
Appraisal expenditure was a cost “occasioned by the assessment” under subsection (c) of this section that property owners could recover; it was a cost specifically and necessarily incurred for assessment purposes prior to the jury trial in order to provide evidence of the assignment of valuation for the property sought to be condemned. Brown v. City of Bryant, 2017 Ark. App. 239, 520 S.W.3d 287 (2017).
Trial court did not direct that copy charges, exhibit processing, fax transmissions, and postage be taxed to a city, and it did not err in its interpretation of this section; this section does not define “other costs”, but subsection (c) gives the trial court leeway, stating that other costs which may arise shall be charged or taxed as the court may direct. Brown v. City of Bryant, 2017 Ark. App. 239, 520 S.W.3d 287 (2017).
In a condemnation proceeding, the circuit court did not err in awarding appraisal fees to the trust; under controlling case law, an appraisal expenditure was a “cost occasioned by the assessment” that could be recovered in determining the amount to award. City of Bryant v. Boone Trust, 2018 Ark. App. 547, 564 S.W.3d 550 (2018).
In determining the amount to award for “other costs” in a condemnation proceeding, the circuit court awarded only the percentage the trust recovered above that which was offered by the city, and the appellate court could not say on the record before it that this was an abuse of discretion. City of Bryant v. Boone Trust, 2018 Ark. App. 547, 564 S.W.3d 550 (2018).
In a condemnation action, the trust was not entitled to prejudgment interest on the award of costs because the expenses were not reasonably ascertainable; on the other hand, the trust was entitled to postjudgment interest on the award of costs. City of Bryant v. Boone Trust, 2018 Ark. App. 547, 564 S.W.3d 550 (2018).
In an eminent domain proceeding brought by a municipal water and sewage commission for two utility easements, the trial court erred in not awarding the landowner the cost of the appraisal fee under this section, as that was a cost specifically and necessarily incurred for assessment purposes, and thus was “occasioned by the assessment”. Blanchard v. City of Springdale, 2019 Ark. App. 522, 588 S.W.3d 807 (2019).
Expert Witness Fees.
Trial court properly found that expert-witness fees incurred by a condemnee to establish the calculation of its just compensation were not “costs occasioned by the assessment” within the meaning of subsection (c) of this section; in the absence of statutory authority, the fees of expert witnesses could not be treated as costs and charged against a losing party. City of Benton v. Alcoa Rd. Storage, 2017 Ark. 78, 513 S.W.3d 259 (2017).
In an eminent domain proceeding brought by a municipal water and sewage commission for two utility easements, the trial court did not err in denying the landowner's expert witness fee given case law specifically holding that such fees were not “costs occasioned by the assessment”. Blanchard v. City of Springdale, 2019 Ark. App. 522, 588 S.W.3d 807 (2019).
Grant of Entry.
Where the condemnor by its complaint in a different tribunal was merely seeking immediate access to the condemned land, no determination as to title was requested and bond was deposited in the court registry to protect potential interest in the land, the court properly allowed the entry to condemnor and granted alternative relief. Karraz v. Taylor, 259 Ark. 699, 535 S.W.2d 840 (1976).
Pleadings.
Where in condemnation suit a deposit of a sum of money was made into the registry of the court and an order was entered in court stating there was a dispute among defendants as to the ownership of the property, pleadings must be filed by the claimants of the land to assert their claim to ownership so that the court might act thereon. Bradley v. Keith, 229 Ark. 326, 315 S.W.2d 13 (1958).