26-517.
Dispute among parties as to division of award or amount of judgment; determination by court.
In any action involving the condemnation of real property in which there is a dispute among the parties in interest as to the division of the amount of the appraisers' award or the amount of the final judgment, the district court shall, upon motion by any such party in interest, determine the final distribution of the amount of the appraisers' award or the amount of the final judgment.
History:
L. 1969, ch. 196, § 3; July 1.
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Final distribution of appraiser's award where dispute arises among interested parties is judicial matter and appeal will lie. Urban Renewal Agency v. Naegele Outdoor Advertising Co., 208 Kan. 210, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 491 P.2d 886.
2. Trial court did not abuse discretion in excluding evidence of specific value of leasehold interest but allowing evidence thereof as factor in arriving at value. City of Manhattan v. Kent, 228 Kan. 513, 514, 517, 519, 618 P.2d 1180.
3. Cited in holding K.S.A. 60-2102 does not provide for appeals in original eminent domain proceedings. In re Condemnation of Land for State Highway Purposes, 235 Kan. 676, 682, 683 P.2d 247 (1984).
4. Rules for proportionate allocation of award among holders of separate interests in property determined. City of Manhattan v. Signor, 244 Kan. 630, 631, 772 P.2d 753 (1989).
5. Allocation of condemnation award between long-term lessee and landowners examined. City of Topeka v. Estate of Mays, 245 Kan. 546, 550, 781 P.2d 721 (1989).
6. Owner of retained easement taken by condemnor entitled to entire amount of appraiser's award. Kansas Gas and Electric Co. v. Will Investments, Inc., 261 Kan. 125, 127, 928 P.2d 73 (1996).
7. Compensating lessee for extra rent required by taking in distribution of condemnation award between lessor and lessee upheld. City of Overland Park v. Dale F. Jenkins Revocable Trust, 263 Kan. 470, 471, 949 P.2d 1115 (1997).
8. District court had jurisdiction to apportion condemnation award according to lease agreement. City of Roeland Park v. Jasan Trust, 281 Kan. 668, 676, 677, 132 P.3d 943 (2006).
9. District court had no authority to order a final distribution of the appraisers' award in the eminent domain proceeding under the facts of case. Miller v. FW Commercial Properties, 293 Kan. 1099, 272 P.3d 596 (2012).
City of Manhattan v. Kent, 618 P.2d 1180 (Kan. 1980). · cites it 10דThe City maintains: (1) Lessee has no right to participate in the jury trial wherein the fair market value of the land as a unit is determined; and (2) the lessee could only participate in a post-trial proceeding pursuant to K.S.A. 26-517 for division of the award. The…”
– GFTLenexa, LLC v. City of Lenexa –, 453 P.3d 304 (Kan. 2019). “See K.S.A. 26-517. At that time, the condemning authority no longer has a stake in the proceedings, having paid the full amount of the value diminished by the condemnation: 12 "'It has long been the rule that where leased property is taken by eminent domain, it is ordinarily…”
City of Roeland Park v. Jasan Trust, 132 P.3d 943 (Kan. 2006). · cites it 4דIn January 2005, the district court held a bifurcated apportionment hearing pursuant to K.S.A. 26-517. The court first apportioned the award for Parcel 1, granting $2,200,000 to the Jasan Trust, and $4,300,000 to BCB.”
Miller v. Glacier Dev. Co., LLC, 270 P.3d 1065 (Kan. 2011). · cites it 2דI would find that the district court had both personal and subject matter jurisdiction over Dean and that its judgments constitute the law of the case, and pursuant to such a finding, I would remand the case to the district court for a determination of the final distribution of…”
City of Overland Park v. Dale F. Jenkins Revocable Trust, 949 P.2d 1115 (Kan. 1997). · cites it 4דPursuant to K.S.A. 26-517, Newell filed a motion requesting the district court to apportion the appraisers’ award of $175,500 among the lessor, Jenkins, and the lessees.”
City of Wichita v. Denton, 294 P.3d 207 (Kan. 2013). “See K.S.A. 26-517. “The condemner has no interest in the apportionment proceedings.”
Andrews v. Fifth Third Bank, 228 S.W.3d 102 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007). “In addressing the issue, the court said: On March 7, 1986, First Agency and First National Bank filed a Joint Motion for Determination of Entitlement to Proceeds, as provided in K.S.A. 26-517. First Agency argued that the November 30, 1984, partial summary judgment was a final…”
City of Topeka v. Est. of Mays, 781 P.2d 721 (Kan. 1989). · cites it 5דThe lessees of the condemned land filed a motion requesting the district court to distribute the appraiser’s award between the lessors and the lessees pursuant to K.S.A. 26-517. This appeal is from the district court’s decision on that motion.”
Kansas Gas & Elec. Co. v. Will Investments, Inc., 928 P.2d 73 (Kan. 1996). “Will and SAD then claimed the funds, setting up the present dispute among the parties for resolution as required by K.S.A. 26-517. Will later filed a disclaimer of interest in the property.”
In Re Condemnation of Land for State High. Purposes, 683 P.2d 1247 (Kan. 1984). “2d 886 (1971), is distinguishable in that it involved a distribution and division of the award pursuant to K.S.A. 26-517, under which statute the court performed judicial work, adversary in nature.”
City of Salina v. Star B, Inc., 731 P.2d 1290 (Kan. Ct. App. 1987). “On March 7,1986, First Agency and First National Bank filed a Joint Motion for Determination of Entitlement to Proceeds, as provided in K.S.A. 26-517. First Agency argued that the November 30,1984, partial summary judgment was a final judgment because the court had certified it…”
Miller v. Fw Com. Props., LLC, 272 P.3d 596 (Kan. 2012). · cites it 5ד] Thereafter, the parties in interest divide the award among themselves. However, ‘if various parties in interest cannot agree among themselves as to the division of that award, the court allocates the award pursuant to K.”
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.