Ark. Code Ann. § 27-67-317 (2026)
Payment of award
- Upon the application of any party in interest and upon due notice to all parties, the court may order that the money deposited in the court, or any part thereof, be paid immediately to the person or persons entitled thereto.
- If the compensation finally awarded exceeds the amount of money deposited by twenty percent (20%) or more, the court shall enter judgment against the State of Arkansas and in favor of the party entitled thereto for the amount of the deficiency and shall award the party entitled to judgment its costs, expenses, and reasonable attorney's fees incurred in preparing and conducting the final hearing and adjudication, including without limitation the cost of appraisals and fees for experts.
- If the compensation finally awarded is less than the amount of money deposited and paid to the persons entitled thereto, the court shall enter judgment in favor of the State of Arkansas and against the proper parties for the amount of the excess.
History. Acts 1953, No. 115, § 4; A.S.A. 1947, § 76-537; Acts 2013, No. 502, § 2; 2015, No. 1101, § 2.
A.C.R.C. Notes. Acts 2013, No. 502, § 1, provided: “Legislative intent.
“(a) It is the intent of the General Assembly to protect the property rights of the people of the State of Arkansas in eminent domain proceedings initiated by the State Highway Commission because, as stated in Article 2, § 22 of the Arkansas Constitution, the right of property in Arkansas is before and higher than any constitutional sanction and should not be taken without just compensation.
“(b) The General Assembly believes when the Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department fails to offer the fair market value for condemned property that costs, expenses, and reasonable attorney's fees should be awarded to the land owner to justly compensate the people of the State of Arkansas.”
Amendments. The 2013 amendment, in (b), inserted “by ten percent (10%) or more” and “and shall award the party … cost of appraisals and fees for experts” and made stylistic changes.
The 2015 amendment substituted “twenty percent (20%)” for “ten percent (10%)” in (b).
Case Notes
Purpose.
Argument that this section applied only to the original deposit made by the State Highway Commission and not to any additional amount required by a court due to its discretion did not impress the court, which felt the General Assembly plainly intended for a landowner to have an immediate right to withdraw the estimated compensation and that the court had discretionary power over the amount to be paid regardless of the commission's concern as to inability to repay funds received in an excessive amount. Adams v. Arkansas State Hwy. Comm'n, 235 Ark. 808, 363 S.W.2d 134, 1962 Ark. LEXIS 670 (1962).
The General Assembly plainly intended for a landowner, in a proper case, to have an immediate right to withdraw the estimated compensation when the full amount was fully deposited in the first instance by the State Highway Commission; the court could think of no good reason for finding a contrary legislative intent merely because the deposit of full and fair compensation had to be directed by a court. Adams v. Arkansas State Hwy. Comm'n, 235 Ark. 808, 363 S.W.2d 134, 1962 Ark. LEXIS 670 (1962).
Applicability.
Subsection (b) did not apply to the jury's verdict that the State Highway Commission owed a property owner for just compensation in an eminent domain action because the amount of compensation finally awarded did not exceed the deposit by 20% or more; and, in any event, the judgment did not cite this section. KW-DW Props., LLC v. Ark. State Hwy. Comm'n, 2019 Ark. 95, 571 S.W.3d 6 (2019).
Interest.
In a condemnation proceeding in which the State Highway Commission was compelled to deposit in court a great deal more money than the jury later found the land to have been worth, giving the landowners the use of the excessive deposit for more than two years, it was held that, since the landowners had obtained the excessive deposit through their own efforts, they would be liable for interest at the rate of six percent per annum. Ark. State Hwy. Comm'n v. Rich, 235 Ark. 858, 362 S.W.2d 429 (1962).
Municipality.
Trial court erred in awarding attorney's fees to the owners in a condemnation proceeding; while this section clearly allows for an award of a fee against the State, it does not allow for an award of fees against a city, and the city proceeded under its own authority when it was substituted as a party. The city did not assume the State Highway Commission's obligation to pay attorney's fees and gained right of entry to the property by virtue of paying a deposit into the registry of the court pursuant to § 18-15-303. City of Siloam Springs v. La-De, LLC, 2015 Ark. 433, 474 S.W.3d 869 (2015).
Proof of Value.
The latitude allowed the parties in bringing out collateral or cumulative facts to support value estimates made by witnesses in eminent domain proceedings is left largely to the discretion of the presiding judge, and it is proper to allow the introduction of evidence tending to show the highest and best use of the property, independent of, and prior to, testimony as to values of lands taken, because evidence is relevant and admissible if it tends to show that the cost of making property available for a use other than that to which it was devoted is consistent with profitability. Arkansas State Highway Com. v. First Pyramid Life Ins. Co., 269 Ark. 278, 602 S.W.2d 609 (1980).
Reasonableness of Award.
In eminent domain proceeding, jury award was held not to be excessive in view of the testimony of at least three experts that the value of the right-of-way taken was greater than award. Arkansas State Highway Com. v. First Pyramid Life Ins. Co., 269 Ark. 278, 602 S.W.2d 609 (1980).
Recovery of Money.
Where one erroneously named by State Highway Commission as owner of land appropriated under eminent domain procedure, with consent of commission, received money deposited from the registry of the court, the commission, having paid the money through error, could recover it from the erroneously named owner. Ark. Real Estate Co. v. Ark. State Hwy. Comm'n, 237 Ark. 1, 371 S.W.2d 1 (1963).
Withdrawals of Deposits.
Under this section, the court may not only permit withdrawals of deposits under §§ 27-67-314 and 27-67-315, but also withdrawal of the additional deposit permitted under § 27-67-318. Adams v. Arkansas State Hwy. Comm'n, 235 Ark. 808, 363 S.W.2d 134, 1962 Ark. LEXIS 670 (1962).