THE UNIFORM CONDEMNATION PROCEDURES ACT
Act 87 of 1980
213.66 Witness fees and compensation; reimbursement of owner's attorney fees and other expenses; matters involving relocation of indigent person; "indigent person" defined.
Sec. 16.
(1) Except as provided in this section, an ordinary or expert witness in a proceeding under this act shall receive from the agency the reasonable fees and compensation provided by law for similar services in ordinary civil actions in circuit court, including the reasonable expenses for preparation and trial.
(2) If the property owner, by motion to review necessity or otherwise, successfully challenges the agency's right to acquire the property, or the legal sufficiency of the proceedings, and the court finds the proposed acquisition improper, the court shall order the agency to reimburse the owner for actual reasonable attorney fees and other expenses incurred in defending against the improper acquisition.
(3) If the amount finally determined to be just compensation for the property acquired exceeds the amount of the good faith written offer under section 5, the court shall order reimbursement in whole or in part to the owner by the agency of the owner's reasonable attorney's fees, but not in excess of 1/3 of the amount by which the ultimate award exceeds the agency's written offer as defined by section 5. The reasonableness of the owner's attorney fees shall be determined by the court. If the agency or owner is ordered to pay attorney fees as sanctions under MCR 2.403 or 2.405, those attorney fee sanctions shall be paid to the court as court costs and shall not be paid to the opposing party unless the parties agree otherwise.
(4) If the agency settles a case before entry of a verdict or judgment, it may stipulate to pay reasonable attorney and expert witness fees.
(5) Expert witness fees provided for in this section shall be allowed with respect to an expert whose services were reasonably necessary to allow the owner to prepare for trial. For the purpose of this section, for each element of compensation, each party is limited to 1 expert witness to testify on that element of compensation unless, upon showing of good cause, the court permits additional experts. The agency's liability for expert witness fees shall not be diminished or affected by the failure of the owner to call an expert as a witness if the failure is caused by settlement or other disposition of the case or issue with which the expert is concerned.
(6) Except as provided in subsection (7), an agency is not required to reimburse attorney or expert witness fees attributable to an unsuccessful challenge to necessity or to the validity of the proceedings.
(7) In any matter under this act involving the relocation of an indigent person, other than a proceeding concerning the taking of property for the construction of a government-owned transportation project, the court may award reasonable attorney and expert witness fees attributable to an unsuccessful challenge to necessity or to the validity of the proceedings if the court finds that there was a reasonable and good faith claim that the property was not being taken for a public use. This subsection does not affect the right of an indigent person who successfully challenges the agency's right to acquire the property to recover attorney fees, ordinary or expert witness fees, and other expenses incurred in defending against the improper acquisition, as authorized by subsections (1) to (5). As used in this subsection, "indigent person" means an individual whose annual income is at or below 200% of the federal poverty guidelines published by the United States department of health and human services. This subsection does not apply after December 31, 2007.
History: 1980, Act 87, Imd. Eff. Apr. 8, 1980 ;-- Am. 1996, Act 474, Imd. Eff. Dec. 26, 1996 ;-- Am. 2006, Act 370, Eff. Dec. 23, 2006
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
50
cases (
5 in the last 5 years), 1983–2022 · leading case:
Smith v. Khouri, 751 N.W.2d 472 (Mich. 2008).
Smith v. Khouri, 751 N.W.2d 472 (Mich. 2008).
· cites it 8× “5(a) is the starting point for all proceedings under that provision of our ethical code? Further, does this new rule apply to other fee-shifting provisions? For example, does the majority's test apply to the fee-shifting provisions of the Uniform Condemnation Procedures Act, MCL…”
Dep't of Transp. v. Randolph, 610 N.W.2d 893 (Mich. 2000).
· cites it 6× “4 MCL 213.66; MSA 8.265(16). 5 See, e.g., Howard v Canteen Corp, 192 Mich App 427, 439; 481 NW2d 718 (1991), overruled in part on other grounds Rafferty v Markovitz, 461 Mich 265 ; 602 NW2d 367 (1999).”
Dep't of Transp. v. Dyl, 441 N.W.2d 18 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989).
· cites it 14× “Plaintiff appeals as of right from the circuit court’s order granting defendants’ motion for attorney fees pursuant to MCL 213.66(3); MSA 8.265(16)(3) and $4,110 pursuant to MCR 2.”
Escanaba & Land Superior R.R. Co. v. Keweenaw Land Ass'n, 402 N.W.2d 505 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 7× “Is a property owner, whose land is unsuccessfully sought to be condemned by a third party under the Uniform Condemnation Procedures Act, 1 entitled to reimbursement of attorney fees and expenses pursuant to § 16 of that act, MCL 213.66; MSA 8.265(16), where the condemnation…”
City of Detroit v. Detroit Plaza Ltd. P'ship, 730 N.W.2d 523 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 3× “[MCL 213.66.] This Court has previously determined that “[a]n award of reasonable expert witness fees, as determined by the trial court, is mandatory under the statute.”
Univ. Rehab. All., Inc. v. Farm Bureau Gen. Ins., 760 N.W.2d 574 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 4× “The Randolph Court contrasted the specific multistep analysis required by MCL 213.66(3) [2] with "other fee-shifting statutes that simply authorize the trial court to award `reasonable attorney fees' without regard to the fees actually charged.”
Hartland Twp. v. Kucykowicz, 474 N.W.2d 306 (Mich. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 4× “265(15) and MCL 213.66; MSA 8.265(16). The trial court denied plaintiff’s motion and granted, in part, defendant’s motion.”
Detroit Int'l Bridge Co. v. Commodities Exp. Co., 760 N.W.2d 565 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 2× “Additionally, MCL 213.66(2) states: If the property owner, by motion to review necessity or otherwise, successfully challenges the agency’s right to acquire the property, or the legal sufficiency of the proceedings, and the court finds the proposed acquisition improper, the…”
People v. Greene, 661 N.W.2d 616 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 2× “§ 213.66, or section 2164 of the revised judicature act of 1961, 1961 PA 236 , M.”
City of Detroit v. J Cusmano & Son, Inc, 459 N.W.2d 3 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989).
· cites it 4× “Section 16 of the act, MCL 213.66; MSA 8.265(16), provides for attorney fees, in part as follows: (3) If the amount finally determined to be just compensation for the property acquired exceeds the amount of the written offer as defined in section 5, the court shall order…”
City of Detroit v. Lufran Co., 406 N.W.2d 235 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 4× “Defendant appeals the trial court’s award of expert witness fees pursuant to § 16 of the Uniform Condemnation Procedures Act, MCL 213.66; MSA 8.265(16). Plaintiff, City of Detroit, condemned property belonging to defendant within the Central Industrial Park Project (Poletown).”
In Re Condemnation of Prop., 530 N.W.2d 183 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 2× “en reimbursement from the condemning authority will be granted and provides in pertinent part: If the amount finally determined to be just compensation for the property acquired exceeds the amount of the written offer as defined in section 5, the court shall order reimbursement…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 213.66(1) — 4 cases
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 213.66(2) — 15 cases
Escanaba & Land Superior R.R. Co. v. Keweenaw Land Ass'n, 402 N.W.2d 505 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986).
“Is a property owner, whose land is unsuccessfully sought to be condemned by a third party under the Uniform Condemnation Procedures Act, 1 entitled to reimbursement of attorney fees and expenses pursuant to § 16 of that act, MCL 213.66; MSA 8.265(16), where the condemnation…”
Detroit Int'l Bridge Co. v. Commodities Exp. Co., 760 N.W.2d 565 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008).
“Additionally, MCL 213.66(2) states: If the property owner, by motion to review necessity or otherwise, successfully challenges the agency’s right to acquire the property, or the legal sufficiency of the proceedings, and the court finds the proposed acquisition improper, the…”
Dep't of Transp. v. Randolph, 610 N.W.2d 893 (Mich. 2000).
“4 MCL 213.66; MSA 8.265(16). 5 See, e.g., Howard v Canteen Corp, 192 Mich App 427, 439; 481 NW2d 718 (1991), overruled in part on other grounds Rafferty v Markovitz, 461 Mich 265 ; 602 NW2d 367 (1999).”
City of Detroit v. J Cusmano & Son, Inc, 459 N.W.2d 3 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989).
“Section 16 of the act, MCL 213.66; MSA 8.265(16), provides for attorney fees, in part as follows: (3) If the amount finally determined to be just compensation for the property acquired exceeds the amount of the written offer as defined in section 5, the court shall order…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 213.66(3) — 28 cases
Smith v. Khouri, 751 N.W.2d 472 (Mich. 2008).
“5(a) is the starting point for all proceedings under that provision of our ethical code? Further, does this new rule apply to other fee-shifting provisions? For example, does the majority's test apply to the fee-shifting provisions of the Uniform Condemnation Procedures Act, MCL…”
Dep't of Transp. v. Dyl, 441 N.W.2d 18 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989).
“Plaintiff appeals as of right from the circuit court’s order granting defendants’ motion for attorney fees pursuant to MCL 213.66(3); MSA 8.265(16)(3) and $4,110 pursuant to MCR 2.”
Univ. Rehab. All., Inc. v. Farm Bureau Gen. Ins., 760 N.W.2d 574 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008).
“The Randolph Court contrasted the specific multistep analysis required by MCL 213.66(3) [2] with "other fee-shifting statutes that simply authorize the trial court to award `reasonable attorney fees' without regard to the fees actually charged.”
City of Detroit v. Detroit Plaza Ltd. P'ship, 730 N.W.2d 523 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007).
“[MCL 213.66.] This Court has previously determined that “[a]n award of reasonable expert witness fees, as determined by the trial court, is mandatory under the statute.”
Dep't of Transp. v. Randolph, 610 N.W.2d 893 (Mich. 2000).
“4 MCL 213.66; MSA 8.265(16). 5 See, e.g., Howard v Canteen Corp, 192 Mich App 427, 439; 481 NW2d 718 (1991), overruled in part on other grounds Rafferty v Markovitz, 461 Mich 265 ; 602 NW2d 367 (1999).”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 213.66(4) — 1 case
Dep't of Transp. v. Randolph, 610 N.W.2d 893 (Mich. 2000).
“4 MCL 213.66; MSA 8.265(16). 5 See, e.g., Howard v Canteen Corp, 192 Mich App 427, 439; 481 NW2d 718 (1991), overruled in part on other grounds Rafferty v Markovitz, 461 Mich 265 ; 602 NW2d 367 (1999).”
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.