Western Farmers Elec. Co-op. v. Willard
| Decision Date | 08 April 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 63082,No. 3,63082,3 |
| Citation | 1986 OK CIV APP 5,726 P.2d 361 |
| Parties | 1986 OK CIV APP 5 WESTERN FARMERS ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, Appellee, v. Harold R. WILLARD, Verla J. Willard, Lymon W. Edwards and Margaret J. Edwards, Appellants. Court of Appeals of Oklahoma, Division |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma |
Young and Young, Sapulpa, for appellants.
Joe Stamper, Antlers, for appellee.
Appellants, (Landowners) in this condemnation action, appeal from an order of the trial court overruling their exceptions to the report of the commissioners appointed to appraise their land condemned by Appellee Electric Cooperative for an easement to construct power lines.
Landowners based their objections on the right of Appellee to exercise the powers of eminent domain. This quasi final order of the trial court has been held to be appealable under 66 O.S.1981 § 56 and in Town of Ames v. Wybrant, 203 Okl. 307, 220 P.2d 693 (1950) 1.
Landowners correctly brought the questions concerning Appellee's right to condemn to the attention of the trial court by objecting to the report of the commissioners. The trial court's ruling upon these objections is an appealable order. 2 However, we find Landowners' objections to be without merit and affirm.
Appellee is an electric cooperative authorized to exercise the power of eminent domain by 18 O.S. 1981 § 437.2(o). 3 It sought to purchase an easement over Landowners' property to construct an electrical transmission line. Attempted negotiations for the purchase were met with strong resistance from Landowners. As a result Appellee filed the present condemnation action in April of 1981.
Appellee's petition alleged the necessity of the taking and asked the court to appoint commissioners. Landowners filed an answer and cross-petition claiming, inter alia, Appellee did not make a diligent effort in good faith to purchase the easement, that it did not comply with the requirements of 27 O.S.1981 § 13, that it improperly entered the property for surveying purposes, that it was attempting to take more property than necessary, and that no written appraisal was furnished to them.
The trial court appointed commissioners on June 22, 1981. They returned their report setting damages at $5,250.00. Appellee's final offer to Landowners had been $4,625.00. Appellee asked for a jury trial and at some point thereafter paid the $5,250.00 into court and began construction of the power lines.
Landowners filed exceptions to the report of commissioners incorporating the above allegations of their cross-petition. Their objections were further predicated on the lack of the right of eminent domain of Appellees, arguing compliance with 27 O.S.1981 § 13 and 63 O.S. 1981 §§ 1085-1099 is a condition precedent to that right. They further alleged that because Appellee took possession without that right, they were entitled to $317,462.00 actual and $3,000,000.00 punitive damages. They later also demanded trial by jury.
It was not until early 1984 that hearing on the exceptions was held. After taking the matter under advisement and submitting the record to another judge for decision, the trial court issued its order denying Landowners' exceptions. This appeal resulted.
The only issue properly appealable at this time is the issue of Appellee's right to condemn. There is no doubt under our statutes and case law that Appellee has the authority of eminent domain. Any objections to the necessity of a taking must be raised by objections to the commissioners' report. 4 Appellants' objections to the report of commissioners did not raise the issue of lack of necessity for the power lines. Thus this issue is waived.
Appellee alleged the necessity of the taking in its petition. A simple allegation of such necessity is sufficient. The condemnors' decision as to the necessity for the taking of particular property will not be disturbed in the absence of fraud, bad faith or abuse of discretion. 5
While it has been held that a bona fide effort to purchase property sought to be condemned is a jurisdictional prerequisite to a condemnation action, 6 the record reveals adequate evidence of attempts by Appellee to purchase the easement.
On appeal Landowners attempt to convince us that because Appellee receives federal funds 7 it is required, as a condition precedent to exercising its rights of eminent domain, to comply with 27 O.S.1981 § 13. 8 Much of Landowners' testimony at the hearing addressed this issue. However, Landowners seem to be unaware that this statute is a statement of policy only. 27 O.S. § 15 specifically provides as such. This section states:
"The provisions of (§ 13) create no rights or liabilities and shall not affect the validity of any property acquisitions by purchase or condemnation."
Consequently the trial court was correct in denying Landowners' objections based on Appellee's alleged failure to comply with Section 13. Landowners' argument Appellee did not have the right to condemn because of failure to comply with 63 O.S.1981 §§ 1085-1099 is inutile. That act applies to relocation payments to displaced persons. Landowners make no allegations they were forced to vacate their property for the easement. This act is inapplicable.
The trial court in its order found punitive damages were not properly within the realm of the condemnation proceedings. This is a correct assessment. In Allen v. Transok Pipeline Company, 552 P.2d 375 (Okla.1976), the Supreme Court held a landowner had a separate and distinct cause of action in trespass for damages and for punitive damages. If a landowner elects to sue in tort, a company with eminent domain authority can cross-petition for condemnation and the two causes of action may be tried in the same case. This holding was modified somewhat by Young v. Seaway Pipeline, Inc., 576 P.2d 1148 (Okla.1978). That decision held if a petition has already been filed in a condemnation proceedings, a landowner is limited to the assertion of his alleged damages resulting from trespass in the condemnation proceedings. In such a condemnation action a jury may assess only those damages incident to the construction and operation of the utility for which the land is taken. Injury due to wilful or negligent construction or operation is not such a remedy as is given by statutes relating to eminent domain. Those damages, including allegations of a right to punitive damages, must be tried in a separate action. 9
Landowners apparently tried to initiate a separate action for trespass by their answer and cross-petition. However only three...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ward Petroleum Corp. v. Stewart, 97,881.
...action." See e.g., Vastar Resources, Inc. v. Howard, supra; Curtis v. WFEC R.R. Co., 2000 OK 26, 1 P.3d 996; Western Farmers Elec. Co-op. v. Willard, 1986 OK CIV APP 5, 726 P.2d 361; Young v. Seaway Pipeline, Inc., 1977 OK 249, 576 P.2d 1148; Oklahoma Gas & Elec. Co. v. Miller Bros. 101 Ran......
-
City of Oklahoma City v. Hamilton
...out that § 13 has been construed as setting forth merely guidelines, and not creating enforceable rights. See Western Farmers Elec. Coop. v. Willard, 1986 OK CIV APP 5, ¶¶ 12-13, 726 P.2d 361, 363, cert. denied (§ 13 is statement of policy only and does not create condition precedent). We a......
-
City of Marlow v. Booker, 96,701.
...only those damages incident to the construction and operation of the utility for which the land is taken. Western Farmers Elec. Co-op. v. Willard, 1986 OK CIV APP 5, 726 P.2d 361, 364. The remedy for damages which are not necessarily incident to the construction and operation of a public im......
-
State ex rel. Dep't oOf Transp. v. Metcalf
...of any property acquisitions by purchase or condemnation.” ODOT additionally cites and relies on Western Farmers Electric Cooperative v. Willard, 1986 OK CIV APP 5, 726 P.2d 361, and Oklahoma Attorney General Opinion No. 99–66, 1999 OK AG 66, which we discuss more fully below. Based on thes......