Ky. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 416

Ky. Rev. Stat. § 416.670

Limitations on condemnation powers -- Rights of current landowner

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KY-LRCapps.legislature.ky.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) Development shall be started on any property which has been acquired through condemnation within a period of eight (8) years from the date of the deed to the condemnor or the date on which the condemnor took possession, whichever is earlier, for the purpose for which it was condemned. The failure of the condemnor to so begin development shall entitle the current landowner to repurchase the property at the price the condemnor paid to the landowner for the property. The current owner of the land from which the condemned land was taken may reacquire the land as aforementioned. (2) Any condemnor who fails to develop property acquired by condemnation or who fails to begin design on highway projects pursuant to KRS Chapter 177 within a period of eight (8) years after acquisition, shall notify the current landowner of the provisions of subsection (1) of this section. If the current landowner refuses to purchase property described in this section, public notice shall be given in a manner prescribed in KRS Chapter 424 within thirty (30) days of the refusal, and the property shall be sold at auction. Provided, however, that this section shall not apply to property acquired for purposes of industrial development pursuant to KRS Chapter 152 or a project of a transportation improvement district under KRS 184.350 to 184.395. (3) If there are two (2) or more current owners of the land from which the condemned land was taken because the remaining land was subdivided, and if they have a common boundary with the condemned land, the condemned land shall be reacquired by allowing all owners of a parcel of the remaining land with a common boundary and from which the condemned land was taken to offer sealed bids for the condemned land within thirty (30) days of notification by the condemnor. The condemnor shall accept the highest and best sealed bid equal to or greater than the price paid at the time of condemnation. If there are no sealed bids or if all sealed bids are below the original price paid by the condemnor for the property, the property shall be sold at auction. Effective: July 14, 2022 History: Amended 2022 Ky. Acts ch. 180, sec. 20, effective July 14, 2022. -- Amended 1980 Ky. Acts ch. 231, sec. 1, effective July 15, 1980. -- Amended 1978 Ky. Acts ch. 384, sec. 117, effective June 17, 1978. -- Created 1976 Ky. Acts ch. 140, sec. 15.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1983–2026 · leading case: Vandertoll v. Commonwealth
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Vandertoll v. Commonwealth (2003) ky · cites it 35× “670 to condemnations occurring more than eight years 1 prior to the statute’s amendment in 1980, constitutes an impermissible retroactive application of that statute; (2) *792 what is the applicable statute of limitations period for claims arising under KRS 416.670; and (3)…”
Martin v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Highways (2006) kyctapp · cites it 11× “In the first appeal to this Court, we partially concurred with the analysis of the trial court by holding that an action pursu *197 ant to KRS 416.670 must be filed within five years.”
Kelly v. Thompson (1998) ky · cites it 9× “The issue presented is whether the application of the right of redemption provided by KRS 416.670 would constitute a retroactive application of the statute in violation of KRS 446.”
Miles v. Dawson (1991) ky · cites it 6× “These facts remove any reasonable dispute as to the applicability of KRS 416.670 and the result achieved by the majority is mandated.”
City of Covington v. Hardebeck (1994) kyctapp · cites it 9× “The circuit court held the reversionary clause in KRS 416.670 was applicable and ordered a portion of the property returned to the original owners.”
Hunsaker v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation (2007) ky · cites it 4× “540 through KRS 416.670 and KRS 117.081, to obtain a right of way for the construction of Jenkins Bypass, U.”
Coleman v. City of Pikeville (1999) kyctapp · cites it 5× “” 3 Judge Coleman also *526 held that the appellants were not entitled to repurchase the property because the property was not condemned but was sold pursuant to an agreement, and he stated that “KRS 416.670 is a part of the procedure used when there is not an agreement between…”
Kentucky Utilities Co. v. Brashear (1987) kyctapp “550 to KRS 416.670 shall be governed by the Civil Rules except where the sections specifically or by necessary implication provide otherwise.”
Knop v. Gardner Edgerton Unified School District No. 231 (2009) kanctapp “See Ky. Rev. Stat. § 416.670(1). When it appeared that the property was not being developed after 8 years, the landowner’s successors in interest sued the City, claiming a right to repurchase the property under the condemnation statute.”
Yahnig v. City of Somerset (2003) kyctapp · cites it 6× “, what actions were taken by the Airport Authority between the time it acquired the property and the filing of Yahnig’s redemption action; where the parties differ is in whether those actions constituted the beginning of development within the period mandated by KRS 416.”
Field & Main Bank, Inc. F/K/A Ohio Valley Financial Group, Inc., Successor by Merger and F/K/A Ohio Valley Bank, Inc., S (2026) kyctapp “KRS 416.670(1). As a project progresses, anticipated or even unforeseen complications may cause an adjustment to the overall project and thus the need for portions of individual property actually taken.”
Knop v. GARDNER EDGERTON UNIFIED SCH. DIST. (2009) kanctapp “See Ky. Rev.Stat. § 416.670(1). When it appeared that the property was not being developed after 8 years, the landowner's successors in interest sued the City, claiming a right to repurchase the property under the condemnation statute.”
Show all 14 citing cases →
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 416.670(1) — 6 cases
City of Covington v. Hardebeck (1994) kyctapp “The circuit court held the reversionary clause in KRS 416.670 was applicable and ordered a portion of the property returned to the original owners.”
Kelly v. Thompson (1998) ky “The issue presented is whether the application of the right of redemption provided by KRS 416.670 would constitute a retroactive application of the statute in violation of KRS 446.”
Coleman v. City of Pikeville (1999) kyctapp “” 3 Judge Coleman also *526 held that the appellants were not entitled to repurchase the property because the property was not condemned but was sold pursuant to an agreement, and he stated that “KRS 416.670 is a part of the procedure used when there is not an agreement between…”
Knop v. Gardner Edgerton Unified School District No. 231 (2009) kanctapp “See Ky. Rev. Stat. § 416.670(1). When it appeared that the property was not being developed after 8 years, the landowner’s successors in interest sued the City, claiming a right to repurchase the property under the condemnation statute.”
Field & Main Bank, Inc. F/K/A Ohio Valley Financial Group, Inc., Successor by Merger and F/K/A Ohio Valley Bank, Inc., S (2026) kyctapp “KRS 416.670(1). As a project progresses, anticipated or even unforeseen complications may cause an adjustment to the overall project and thus the need for portions of individual property actually taken.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 416.670(1980) — 1 case
Kelly v. Thompson (1998) ky “The issue presented is whether the application of the right of redemption provided by KRS 416.670 would constitute a retroactive application of the statute in violation of KRS 446.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 416.670(2) — 1 case
Vandertoll v. Commonwealth (2003) ky “670 to condemnations occurring more than eight years 1 prior to the statute’s amendment in 1980, constitutes an impermissible retroactive application of that statute; (2) *792 what is the applicable statute of limitations period for claims arising under KRS 416.670; and (3)…”
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.