Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes

26 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 710 (2026)

Limited reimbursement of appraisal, attorney and engineering fees.

✓ current as of May 2026

Coverage note: this corpus holds the consolidated Pa.C.S. titles only. Unconsolidated P.S. statutes (UTPCPL 73 P.S. § 201-1, Liquor Code, wage payment laws) are not included; a miss here does not mean the statute does not exist. Check palegis.us.

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section PA-LEGpalegis.us JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§ 710. Limited reimbursement of appraisal, attorney and engineering fees.

(a) General rule.--The owner of any right, title or interest in real property acquired or injured by an acquiring agency, who is not eligible for reimbursement of fees under section 306(g) (relating to preliminary objections), 308(d) (relating to revocation of condemnation proceedings) or 709 (relating to condemnee's costs where no declaration of taking filed), shall be reimbursed in an amount not to exceed $4,000 per property, regardless of right, title or interest, as a payment toward reasonable expenses actually incurred for appraisal, attorney and engineering fees, except where the taking is for an easement related to underground piping for water or sewer infrastructure, in which case the reimbursement is limited to $1,000, regardless of right, title or interest.

(b) Attorney fees.--In determining reasonable attorney fees under sections 306(g), 308(d), 709 and this section, the court shall consider all of the circumstances of the case, including, but not limited to, time records if available.

(July 9, 2014, P.L.1037, No.120, eff. 60 days)

2014 Amendment. Act 120 amended subsec. (a).

Cross References. Section 710 is referred to in section 519 of this title.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2019–2023 · leading case: S.J. Szabo & M.B. Szabo v. DOT, 212 A.3d 1168 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2019).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

S.J. Szabo & M.B. Szabo v. DOT, 212 A.3d 1168 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2019). · cites it 2× “Section 710(a) of the Eminent Domain Code, 26 Pa. C.S. § 710(a). 6 In Szabo II , the Supreme Court held that PennDOT, "[b]y inadequately identifying the extent or effect of the taking," "misled the Szabos and denied them an opportunity to secure just compensation.”

R. Miller & M.L. Miller v. The Borough of Indian Lake (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2023). · cites it 3× “What time limit, if any, applies to a Motion for Appraisal, Attorney and Engineering Fees under 26 Pa. C.S. § 710? 2. Is a Condemnee required to file a motion under 26 Pa.”

UGI Sunbury LLC v. A Permanent Easement (M.D. Penn. 2021). · cites it 3× “sales comparison approach), they reached substantially different conclusions about the property’s pre-taking value: Rothman valued the property at $950,000,36 and Krauser valued it at $750,000.”

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Co., LLC v. PERMANENT EASEMENTS FOR (M.D. Penn. 2023). “as a payment toward reasonable expenses actually incurred for appraisal, attorney and engineering fees.”

— 26 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 710(a) — 1 case

S.J. Szabo & M.B. Szabo v. DOT, 212 A.3d 1168 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2019). “Section 710(a) of the Eminent Domain Code, 26 Pa. C.S. § 710(a). 6 In Szabo II , the Supreme Court held that PennDOT, "[b]y inadequately identifying the extent or effect of the taking," "misled the Szabos and denied them an opportunity to secure just compensation.”

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.