K.S.A. » Chapter 26

K.S.A. § 26-513

Same; compensation required for taking and damage; determination

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KS-LEGkslegislature.org JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

26-513. Same; compensation required for taking and damage; determination. (a) Necessity. Private property shall not be taken or damaged for public use without just compensation.

(b) Taking entire tract. If the entire tract of land or interest in such land is taken, the measure of compensation is the fair market value of the property or interest at the time of the taking.

(c) Partial taking. If only a part of a tract of land or interest is taken, the compensation and measure of damages is the difference between the fair market value of the entire property or interest immediately before the taking, and the value of that portion of the tract or interest remaining immediately after the taking.

(d) Factors to be considered. In ascertaining the amount of compensation and damages, the following nonexclusive list of factors shall be considered if such factors are shown to exist. Such factors are not to be considered as separate items of damages, but are to be considered only as they affect the total compensation and damage under the provisions of subsections (b) and (c) of this section. Such factors are:

(1) The most advantageous use to which the property is reasonably adaptable.

(2) Access to the property remaining.

(3) Appearance of the property remaining, if appearance is an element of value in connection with any use for which the property is reasonably adaptable.

(4) Productivity, convenience, use to be made of the property taken, or use of the property remaining.

(5) View, ventilation and light, to the extent that they are beneficial attributes to the use of which the remaining property is devoted or to which it is reasonably adaptable.

(6) Severance or division of a tract, whether the severance is initial or is in aggravation of a previous severance; changes of grade and loss or impairment of access by means of underpass or overpass incidental to changing the character or design of an existing improvement being considered as in aggravation of a previous severance, if in connection with the taking of additional land and needed to make the change in the improvement.

(7) Loss of trees and shrubbery to the extent that they affect the value of the land taken, and to the extent that their loss impairs the value of the land remaining.

(8) Cost of new fences or loss of fences and the cost of replacing them with fences of like quality, to the extent that such loss affects the value of the property remaining.

(9) Destruction of a legal nonconforming use.

(10) Damage to property abutting on a right-of-way due to change of grade where accompanied by a taking of land.

(11) Proximity of new improvement to improvements remaining on condemnee's land.

(12) Loss of or damage to growing crops.

(13) That the property could be or had been adapted to a use which was profitably carried on.

(14) Cost of new drains or loss of drains and the cost of replacing them with drains of like quality, to the extent that such loss affects the value of the property remaining.

(15) Cost of new private roads or passageways or loss of private roads or passageways and the cost of replacing them with private roads or passageways of like quality, to the extent that such loss affects the value of the property remaining.

(e) Fair market value. "Fair market value" means the amount in terms of money that a well informed buyer is justified in paying and a well informed seller is justified in accepting for property in an open and competitive market, assuming that the parties are acting without undue compulsion. The fair market value shall be determined by use of the comparable sales, cost or capitalization of income appraisal methods or any combination of such methods.

History: L. 1963, ch. 234, § 13; L. 1969, ch. 196, § 2; L. 1999, ch. 111, § 3; April 22.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 72 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1968–2026 · leading case: City of Mission Hills v. Sexton
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
City of Mission Hills v. Sexton (2007) kan · cites it 20× “Nichols recognizes that partial takings and temporary easements are often difficult to value; generally the “before and after” rule (like the one in K.S.A. 26-513) measures permanent reductions in fair market value.”
Estate of Kirkpatrick v. City of Olathe (2009) kan · cites it 27× “The district court awarded the landowner compensation under K.S.A. 26-513. The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that mere damage to real property is not compensable under Kansas eminent domain law unless the damage is necessary to the completion of a public improvement…”
City of Wichita v. McDonald's Corp. (1999) kan · cites it 40× “” Procedural History The district court ordered this case consolidated with two others to determine a common issue of law: “Whether, under the facts in these cases, access to the property remaining is a factor to be considered in determining the value of the property remaining…”
Miller v. Bartle (2007) kan · cites it 10× “26-508 specifically limits the issue to be raised in such a proceeding to the compensation required under K.S.A. 26-513. The Secretary states that diese issues should have been brought in a separate civil action, such as a declaratory action or an action for injunctive relief,…”
Butler County Rural Water District No. 8 v. Yates (2003) kan · cites it 9× “The question, as framed by the Yates on appeal, is whether a governmental entity may claim it paid just compensation for the private property it has taken while asserting at trial that the value of the interest taken was zero.”
Kansas City Power & Light Co. v. Strong (2015) kan · cites it 19× “Smith is an appraiser and testified that he followed K.S.A. 26-513 to determine the value of the Strongs’ property as of the taking.”
Ben J. v. City of Salina (2010) kan · cites it 13× “26-513[a]), the district court found that the Fricks failed to state a cause of action for inverse condemnation in that they “failed to allege any controverted facts that would establish that any damage caused by contractors was necessary to complete the road project.” In Kau…”
Miller v. GLACIER DEVELOPMENT CO., LLC (2007) kan · cites it 8× “The only issue to be determined therein shall be the compensation required by K.S.A. 26-513, and amendments thereto." (Emphasis added.”
City of Wichita v. Denton (2013) kan · cites it 9× “26-501 et seq, K.S.A. 26-513 provides parameters for the property subject to condemnation and the methods for determining the compensation due.”
Manhattan Ice & Cold Storage, Inc. v. City of Manhattan (2012) kan · cites it 8× “” Under the definition in K.S.A. 26-513, there are three methods for valuing property — comparable sales, replacement cost, or income capitalization.”
Miller v. Preisser (2012) kan · cites it 18× “When an appraisers’ award is appealed in an eminent domain action, “[t]he only issue to be determined therein shall be the com *365 pensation required by K.S.A. 26-513.” K.S.A. 2011 Supp. 26-508.”
Water District No. 1 of Johnson County v. Prairie Center Development, L.L.C. (2016) kan · cites it 4× “7 The EDPA does provide that if any party is not satisfied with the amount awarded in the appraiser's report the party can appeal to the district court for a trial de novo.”
Show all 72 citing cases →
— K.S.A. § 26-513(a) — 19 cases
Estate of Kirkpatrick v. City of Olathe (2009) kan “The district court awarded the landowner compensation under K.S.A. 26-513. The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that mere damage to real property is not compensable under Kansas eminent domain law unless the damage is necessary to the completion of a public improvement…”
Water District No. 1 of Johnson County v. Prairie Center Development, L.L.C. (2016) kan “7 The EDPA does provide that if any party is not satisfied with the amount awarded in the appraiser's report the party can appeal to the district court for a trial de novo.”
City of Wichita v. Denton (2013) kan “26-501 et seq, K.S.A. 26-513 provides parameters for the property subject to condemnation and the methods for determining the compensation due.”
Miller v. Bartle (2007) kan “26-508 specifically limits the issue to be raised in such a proceeding to the compensation required under K.S.A. 26-513. The Secretary states that diese issues should have been brought in a separate civil action, such as a declaratory action or an action for injunctive relief,…”
City of Mission Hills v. Sexton (2007) kan “Nichols recognizes that partial takings and temporary easements are often difficult to value; generally the “before and after” rule (like the one in K.S.A. 26-513) measures permanent reductions in fair market value.”
— K.S.A. § 26-513(b) — 13 cases
Miller v. GLACIER DEVELOPMENT CO., LLC (2007) kan “The only issue to be determined therein shall be the compensation required by K.S.A. 26-513, and amendments thereto." (Emphasis added.”
Winkel v. Miller (2009) kan
City of Wichita v. Sealpak Co. (2005) kan
City of Wichita v. Denton (2013) kan “26-501 et seq, K.S.A. 26-513 provides parameters for the property subject to condemnation and the methods for determining the compensation due.”
City of Wichita v. Eisenring (2000) kan
— K.S.A. § 26-513(c) — 19 cases
Butler County Rural Water District No. 8 v. Yates (2003) kan “The question, as framed by the Yates on appeal, is whether a governmental entity may claim it paid just compensation for the private property it has taken while asserting at trial that the value of the interest taken was zero.”
Harsch v. Miller (2009) kan
Miller v. Bartle (2007) kan “26-508 specifically limits the issue to be raised in such a proceeding to the compensation required under K.S.A. 26-513. The Secretary states that diese issues should have been brought in a separate civil action, such as a declaratory action or an action for injunctive relief,…”
City of Mission Hills v. Sexton (2007) kan “Nichols recognizes that partial takings and temporary easements are often difficult to value; generally the “before and after” rule (like the one in K.S.A. 26-513) measures permanent reductions in fair market value.”
Winkel v. Miller (2009) kan
— K.S.A. § 26-513(d) — 21 cases
City of Mission Hills v. Sexton (2007) kan “Nichols recognizes that partial takings and temporary easements are often difficult to value; generally the “before and after” rule (like the one in K.S.A. 26-513) measures permanent reductions in fair market value.”
City of Wichita v. McDonald's Corp. (1999) kan “” Procedural History The district court ordered this case consolidated with two others to determine a common issue of law: “Whether, under the facts in these cases, access to the property remaining is a factor to be considered in determining the value of the property remaining…”
Kansas City Power & Light Co. v. Strong (2015) kan “Smith is an appraiser and testified that he followed K.S.A. 26-513 to determine the value of the Strongs’ property as of the taking.”
Ben J. v. City of Salina (2010) kan “26-513[a]), the district court found that the Fricks failed to state a cause of action for inverse condemnation in that they “failed to allege any controverted facts that would establish that any damage caused by contractors was necessary to complete the road project.” In Kau…”
In Re Central Kansas Electric Cooperative, Inc. (1978) kan
— K.S.A. § 26-513(d)(1) — 2 cases
Kansas City Mall Associates, Inc. v. Unified Government of Wyandotte County (2012) kan
Board of County Commissioners v. Smith (2005) kan
— K.S.A. § 26-513(d)(10) — 1 case
Ben J. v. City of Salina (2010) kan “26-513[a]), the district court found that the Fricks failed to state a cause of action for inverse condemnation in that they “failed to allege any controverted facts that would establish that any damage caused by contractors was necessary to complete the road project.” In Kau…”
— K.S.A. § 26-513(d)(15) — 2 cases
Ben J. v. City of Salina (2010) kan “26-513[a]), the district court found that the Fricks failed to state a cause of action for inverse condemnation in that they “failed to allege any controverted facts that would establish that any damage caused by contractors was necessary to complete the road project.” In Kau…”
Miller v. Preisser (2012) kan “When an appraisers’ award is appealed in an eminent domain action, “[t]he only issue to be determined therein shall be the com *365 pensation required by K.S.A. 26-513.” K.S.A. 2011 Supp. 26-508.”
— K.S.A. § 26-513(d)(2) — 2 cases
City of Wichita v. McDonald's Corp. (1999) kan “” Procedural History The district court ordered this case consolidated with two others to determine a common issue of law: “Whether, under the facts in these cases, access to the property remaining is a factor to be considered in determining the value of the property remaining…”
Miller v. Preisser (2012) kan “When an appraisers’ award is appealed in an eminent domain action, “[t]he only issue to be determined therein shall be the com *365 pensation required by K.S.A. 26-513.” K.S.A. 2011 Supp. 26-508.”
— K.S.A. § 26-513(d)(4) — 2 cases
City of Mission Hills v. Sexton (2007) kan “Nichols recognizes that partial takings and temporary easements are often difficult to value; generally the “before and after” rule (like the one in K.S.A. 26-513) measures permanent reductions in fair market value.”
City of Wichita v. McDonald's Corp. (1999) kan “” Procedural History The district court ordered this case consolidated with two others to determine a common issue of law: “Whether, under the facts in these cases, access to the property remaining is a factor to be considered in determining the value of the property remaining…”
— K.S.A. § 26-513(d)(5) — 1 case
City of Wichita v. McDonald's Corp. (1999) kan “” Procedural History The district court ordered this case consolidated with two others to determine a common issue of law: “Whether, under the facts in these cases, access to the property remaining is a factor to be considered in determining the value of the property remaining…”
— K.S.A. § 26-513(d)(6) — 1 case
Miller v. Preisser (2012) kan “When an appraisers’ award is appealed in an eminent domain action, “[t]he only issue to be determined therein shall be the com *365 pensation required by K.S.A. 26-513.” K.S.A. 2011 Supp. 26-508.”
— K.S.A. § 26-513(d)(7) — 2 cases
Estate of Kirkpatrick v. City of Olathe (2009) kan “The district court awarded the landowner compensation under K.S.A. 26-513. The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that mere damage to real property is not compensable under Kansas eminent domain law unless the damage is necessary to the completion of a public improvement…”
Ben J. v. City of Salina (2010) kan “26-513[a]), the district court found that the Fricks failed to state a cause of action for inverse condemnation in that they “failed to allege any controverted facts that would establish that any damage caused by contractors was necessary to complete the road project.” In Kau…”
— K.S.A. § 26-513(d)(8) — 1 case
Pener v. King (2017) kan
— K.S.A. § 26-513(d)(l) — 5 cases
City of Wichita v. Denton (2013) kan “26-501 et seq, K.S.A. 26-513 provides parameters for the property subject to condemnation and the methods for determining the compensation due.”
Miller v. Preisser (2012) kan “When an appraisers’ award is appealed in an eminent domain action, “[t]he only issue to be determined therein shall be the com *365 pensation required by K.S.A. 26-513.” K.S.A. 2011 Supp. 26-508.”
Garrett v. City of Topeka (1996) kan
Secretary of Kansas Dept. of Transportation v. Underwood Equipment, Inc. (2002) kan
City of Topeka v. Estate of Mays (1989) kan
— K.S.A. § 26-513(e) — 16 cases
City of Mission Hills v. Sexton (2007) kan “Nichols recognizes that partial takings and temporary easements are often difficult to value; generally the “before and after” rule (like the one in K.S.A. 26-513) measures permanent reductions in fair market value.”
Miller v. GLACIER DEVELOPMENT CO., LLC (2007) kan “The only issue to be determined therein shall be the compensation required by K.S.A. 26-513, and amendments thereto." (Emphasis added.”
Kansas City Power & Light Co. v. Strong (2015) kan “Smith is an appraiser and testified that he followed K.S.A. 26-513 to determine the value of the Strongs’ property as of the taking.”
Manhattan Ice & Cold Storage, Inc. v. City of Manhattan (2012) kan “” Under the definition in K.S.A. 26-513, there are three methods for valuing property — comparable sales, replacement cost, or income capitalization.”
Miller v. Bartle (2007) kan “26-508 specifically limits the issue to be raised in such a proceeding to the compensation required under K.S.A. 26-513. The Secretary states that diese issues should have been brought in a separate civil action, such as a declaratory action or an action for injunctive relief,…”
— K.S.A. § 26-513(h) — 1 case
Urban Renewal Agency v. Gospel Mission Church & School (1979) kanctapp
— K.S.A. § 26-513(o) — 1 case
Urban Renewal Agency v. Gospel Mission Church & School (1979) kanctapp
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.