Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 163
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 163.17 (2026)

Interest

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Effective:
July 6, 2001
Latest Legislation:
Senate Bill 108 - 124th General Assembly
PDF:
Download Authenticated PDF
 

Where the agency has the right to take possession of the property before the verdict upon payment into court of a deposit, and a portion of said deposit may be withdrawn immediately by the owner, the amount of the verdict which exceeds the portion of the deposit withdrawable shall be subject to interest from the date of taking to the date of actual payment of the award.

Where the agency has no right to take possession of the property before the verdict, if the award is not paid to the owner or deposited in court within twenty-one days after journalization of the verdict, interest thereafter shall accrue, except that where the owner appeals, interest shall not accrue until the agency takes possession.

If the owner appeals and is granted a larger award, interest shall be paid on the additional amount awarded from the date of taking possession to the date of actual payment or date of deposit with immediate right of withdrawal.

If the agency wishes to appeal, it may require the deposit to remain with the court pending final disposition of the case provided it pays interest on the final award from date of taking possession to the date the money is actually paid or made available to the owner; provided, the owner may withdraw the entire award upon posting an appropriate refund bond set by the court; and provided, that where a building or other structure is taken, the court may, on application of the owner, permit the owner to withdraw a reasonable portion of the award allocable to the building without giving bond.

If the amount of any deposit actually withdrawn by the owner exceeds the final award from which no appeal is or can be taken, then the owner at the time of entry of judgment on such award shall refund at once to the court for the account of the agency the amount of such excess plus interest on such excess from the date of withdrawal of such excess until the date of such refund, and upon the failure of the owner to make such refund, the agency shall be entitled to a money judgment against the owner.

Except for cases involving the department of transportation, interest as provided for in this section shall be at the rate of interest for judgments as set forth in section 1343.03 of the Revised Code. In a case involving the appropriation of property by the department of transportation, and the department is the sole public agency seeking to appropriate property in the case, interest as provided for in this section shall be at the per annum rate of either the interest rate as defined and established in division (B) of section 5703.47 of the Revised Code, or ten per cent, whichever is less.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15 cases, 1968–2013 · leading case: Ohio Dep't of Nat. Resources v. Hughes, 762 N.E.2d 422 (Ohio Ct. App. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Ohio Dep't of Nat. Resources v. Hughes, 762 N.E.2d 422 (Ohio Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 26× “03(A) or R.C. 163.17, since the court cited cases construing both statutes.”
Ohio Power Co. v. Ogle, 2013 Ohio 1745 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 6× “{¶2} In light of our finding that Appellants were not entitled to post- judgment interest on the jury verdict under R.C. 163.17, Appellants’ first and second assignments of error are overruled.”
State ex rel. Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers v. Sheward, 715 N.E.2d 1062 (Ohio 1999). · cites it 2× “06), liability for the condition of premises open to the public for accessing growing agricultural produce (R.”
State ex rel. Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers v. Sheward, 1999 Ohio 123 (Ohio 1999). · cites it 2× “06), liability for the condition of premises open to the public for accessing growing agricultural produce (R.C. 901.”
State v. Penrod, 611 N.E.2d 996 (Ohio Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 4× ““If property is not lost, stolen or abandoned, is not alleged to have been used or obtained illegally, and has been found to not be subject to forfeiture, the continued deprivation of the owner’s use, control, and possession of said property amounts to an appropriation of said…”
Viock v. Stowe-Woodward Co., 569 N.E.2d 1070 (Ohio Ct. App. 1989). “E-77-20, unreported, which dealt with computation of interest under R.C. 163.17, interest payable on a verdict in appropriation of property cases.”
City of Norwood v. Cannava, 543 N.E.2d 802 (Ohio 1989). · cites it 3× “The sole issue presented by this appeal is whether the date of taking for computation of interest pursuant to R.C. 163.17 is the date the appropriating authority first takes action which depreciates the value of the property or the date when the appropriating authority takes…”
City of Hilliard v. First Indus., L.P., 846 N.E.2d 559 (Ohio Ct. App. 2005). “{¶ 46} R.C. 163.17 directs the appropriating agency to pay interest on the appropriated land from the date of taking to the date of actual payment of the award.”
City of Dublin v. Pewamo Ltd., 954 N.E.2d 1225 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011). “{¶ 46} R.C. 163.17 reads: If the amount of any deposit actually withdrawn by the owner exceeds the final award from which no appeal is or can be taken, then the owner at the time of entry of judgment on such award shall refund at once to the court for the account of the agency…”
South Carolina Dep't of Transp. v. Faulkenberry, 522 S.E.2d 822 (S.C. Ct. App. 1999). “Ohio Rev.Code Ann. § 163.17 covers a number of different scenarios, but where the landowner has withdrawn a portion of the deposit, interest accrues only on the amount of the verdict that exceeds the amount withdrawn.”
Port Auth. v. River Servs. Co., 457 N.E.2d 850 (Ohio Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 7× “” The crux of this case is the correct interpretation of what “journalization of the verdict” appearing in R.C. 163.17 means. R.C. 163.17 states in relevant part: “Where the agency has no right to take possession of the property before the verdict, if the award is not paid to…”
Vill. of Gates Mills v. Jones, 642 N.E.2d 444 (Ohio Ct. App. 1994). “Furthermore, in construing provisions of R.C. 163.17 that provide for interest on an appropriation that has not been abandoned, courts have ruled that interest is not to be awarded while the landowner retains possession of the property.”
Show all 15 citing cases →
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.