*1 part appeals’ judgment, of the court of HUBENAK, Thelma Blahuta deny-
basis for the trial court’s decision for Petitioner, — pursued legiti- fees ing each side — changed. mate interests has not Ac- v.
cordingly, we will not disturb the trial SAN JACINTO GAS TRANSMISSION discretionary court’s decision that re- COMPANY, Respondent. gard. appeals’ We affirm the court of and Thelma Blahuta Hubenak Emil judgment attorney’s fees. Blahuta, Petitioners, v.
IX San Jacinto Gas Transmission Company, Respondent. Conclusion Wenzel, McAndrew, Rosie Wilma (1) appeals’ judg- We affirm the court of Betty McCleney, and Tilford ment as to the increased assessments in Sulak, Petitioners, Two, Sections One and the assessment of v. (2) fees, foreclosure; late reverse the judgment court of Jacinto appeals’ and render San Gas Transmission Company, Respondent. judgment as to accumulation of fee in- (3) Five; creases under Sections Four and Family Trust, Darryl Wayne Kutach vacate the trial court’s and the court of Kutach, Trustee, Petitioner, appeals’ judgments as to Sections Three v. jurisdic- Six dismiss want San Jacinto Gas Transmission sections; tion Brooks’s claim as to those Company, Respondent. (4) affirm the of appeals’ judg- court regarding attorney’s ment fees. Tex. Petitioner, Corporation, Cusack Ranch (e). 60.2(a), (c), R.App. P. Company, Pipeline
MidTexas Respondent. Company, Pipeline MidTexas Petitioner, Dernehl, and The Wilbert O. Jr. First Bellville, National Bank of Respondents. Pipeline Company, MidTexas Petitioner, *2 v. Roy Wright,
Walter Jr. and Robbie Wright, Respondents.
V. Pipeline Company,
MidTexas
Petitioner, Roy Wright, III, Respondent.
Walter Cusack,
Michael F. Trustee of the Special
Michael F. Cusack Trust One, Petitioner,
No. Pipeline Company,
MidTexas
Respondent. 02-0217, 02-0320,
Nos. 02-0213 to
02-0321, 02-0326, 02-0359.
Supreme Court of Texas.
Argued Feb. July
Decided Adler, Austin, I. for Amicus
Stephen Corporation. Olin Curiae McElya, Angleton, Richard L. William Noel, Hubenak, for Thelma Blahuta D. *3 Roy Ranch Corporation, Cusack Walter Wright, III. Sheffield, Houston, E. for
Thomas San Company. Jacinto Gas Transmission Emil McElya, Angleton, Richard L. for Blahuta, McAndrew, Betty Wilma McCle- Sulak, Kutach, Darryl Wayne ney, Tilford Trustee, The First National Bank of Bell- ville, Wright, Robbie V. Michael Cusack Special Trust No. One. Noel, Wenzel, D. for Ku-
William Rosie Dernehl, Trust, Family tach O. Wilbert Jr., Jr., F. Roy Wright, Walter Michael Cusack, Trustee. Jr., Dallas, Thomas Raney
Kenneth C. Sheffield, Houston, Pipe- MidTexas E. Company. line Houston, Carroll, for Amicus Stephen K. Pipelines BP Inc. Curiae opinion Justice OWEN delivered Court, in which Chief Justice PHILLIPS, HECHT, Justice Justice SMITH, WAINWRIGHT Justice joined, and which Justice BRISTER I, joined as to Parts Justice JEFFERSON III. II and condemnation In these nine consolidated (1) pro must determine whether we section Property in Texas Code visions authority permitting condemning 21.012 if it is begin condemnation “unable to with the owner damages” amount of property on the petition to con requiring a condemnation that it has been unable tain a statement (2) jurisdictional;1 and the con agree are in these cases satisfied demning entities Prop.Code 21.012(a), (b). 1. Tex. requirements. respective
section 21.012’s hold main Their power.11 We boards agree” requirement the “unable to construct directors authorized them to nat- jurisdictional condemning and that the ural gas pipelines. Some of landown- entities have satisfied their show pipeline burden to ers whose was across that they and challenged validity the landowners were unable be built12 on the properties proceedings. condemnation affected described in underlying properties are in several Texas located (1) Accordingly, Bend, petitions. counties, Colorado, we affirm the including Fort in Hubenak appeals’ judgments courts of and Gonzales counties. Because the issues v. San Jacinto Gas Transmission Co. same, in each of the cases are the we will (.Hubenak ),2 1 Hubenak v. San Jacinto collectively refer to the landowners and to *4 Gas Transmission Co. ),3 {Hubenak utility gas companies as “condem- Wenzel v. San Jacinto Gas Transmission nors.” Co,,4 Family Kutach Trust v. San Jacinto instituting pro- Before condemnation Co.,5 Gas Transmission and Cusack ceedings, the hired certified condemnors Co.; 6 Ranch Corp. Pipeline v. MidTexas real appraisers estate to appraise pro- (2) affirm of appeals’ the court judgment posed easements across the landowners’ Pipeline MidTexas Co. v. Cusack7 and re case, properties. In each the condemnors mand that case to the trial fur court for made at least two offers to landowners proceedings ther opin consistent with this to purchase property. their Each offer (3) ion; and appeals’ reverse court of appraised exceeded value the ease- Pipeline MidTexas v.Co.
judgments in ments, including a final offer that con- Demehl,8 Pipeline MidTexas Co. following you tained the “If statement: ),9 Wright (Wright 1 Pipe and MidTexas reject offer, elect to this [the condemnor] 2)10 line Co. v. Wright (Wright re may institute suit in condemnation [a mand those cases to their trial respective court], designated rights acquire courts for further consistent Right Way Agree- described opinion. with this right-of-way ment.” The agreements at- tached to all of the final offers included the I followingterms:
San Jacinto Gas Transmission
Co.
(1)
Pipeline
MidTexas
Co. are
gas
unrelated
the condemnor would receive the
utility companies possessing
oil,
eminent do-
right
transport “gas,
petroleum
(Cause
(Cause
2.
to warrant and defend title to the ease- state that the and the erty agree owner are unable to ment. damages.13 repeatedly The landowners informed the petitions filed in the during negotiations they condemnors foregoing all trial courts contained simply did not want a located on pipeline statutory allegations, including a statement many their and in properties, that the condemnors and the landowners landowners stated would to sell were unable to on the prices the easements far above the properties peti- condemned. The be values, appraised Ultimately, if at all. however, tions, expressly did not seek rejected each case either three condemn or otherwise address the *5 final The ignored the condemnors’ offers. in right-of-way matters contained the then condemnation in condemnors agreements transportation the regarding appropriate the trial courts. substances, the of oil and other Property Section 21.012 of the Texas easement, the landowners’ assign the and provides: Code obligations to warrant title. ’ (a) States, state, If the United this case, appointed In each the trial court state, a political subdivision of this special damages, commissioners to assess eminent domain au- corporation with special and the commissioners awarded im- thority, irrigation, water had landowners less than the condemnors provement, power control water easements, excep offered for the district created law wants to ac- and Cusack of the awards Cusack quire property public real for use but filed timely Ranch.14 The landowners is unable to with the owner objections to the commissioners’ their on amount of dam- Demehl, awards, Wright and and ages, condemning entity may be- Wright the landowners also filed coun proceeding by a condemnation fil- gin and possession terclaims for of their land in the court. ing petition proper In damages wrongful taking. all (b) cases, responded by filing petition The must: the condemnors Prop.Code 21.012. 13. Tex. highest
14. The
offers and commissioners
awards were:
condemnors
2,918.00
6,089.80
(02-0213):
offer-$
award-$
Hubenak 1
offer-$24,602.65
8,843.00
(02-0214):
award-$
Hubenak 2
offer-$14,620.38
4,606.00
(02-0215):
award-$
Wenzel
6,360.00
2,670.00
(02-0216):
award-$
offer-$
Kutach
offer-$25,000.00
award-$25,836.24
(02-0217):
Cusack Ranch
offer-$13,331.00
6,000.00
(02-0320):
award-$
Dernehl
offer-$17,000.00
10,000.00
(02-0321):
Wright
award-$
offer-$18,000.00
award-$12,500.00
(02-0326):
Wright 2
award-$15,328.56
offer-$13,941.00
(02-0359):
Cusack
for partial summary judgment,
explicitly sought
motions
the condemnors had not
as
serting
prerequi
had satisfied all
condemn
main-
landowners
to bringing
sites
the condemnation actions
could not legally
tained the condemnors
damages
and that the amount of
was the
objected
condemn. The
also
pending
issue
court.
Dunwoody’s
hearsay,
affidavits as
con-
motions,
of their
support
the condemnors
clusory,
incomplete.
The landowners’
attached affidavits from David M. Dun-
summary
pri-
judgment evidence consisted
woody
inability
agree.
the issue of
marily of the condemnors’ admissions that
Dunwoody
oversaw the
be
sign
proposed
the landowners had
tween
condemnors and landowners in
right-of-way agreements
accept
order to
each
the nine
His
cases.
affidavits re
the offers.
obtaining
appraisals,
count
independent
each
The trial court
of the cases
landowners,
the offers made to the
and the
initially granted the condemnors’ motions
failure to
parties’
agree.
In most of the
partial
judgment
and over-
summary
cases, Dunwoody’s affidavit also authenti
objections
ruled
to Dunwoody’s
affida-
correspondence
passed
cates
between
vits. Five of the cases—Hubenak
landowners,
the condemnors and the
in
Kutach,
Wenzel,
Hubenak
and Cusack
cluding
offers,
final
condemnors’
trial
Ranch —then went to
on the amount
right-of-way agents’
notes about land
damages.
juries in
Hubenak 2 and
contacts.
owner
Kutach awarded
to the landown-
In all the
the landowners filed
ers that were
than what
less
the condem-
partial summary
cross-motions for
judg-
them,15
juries
nors had offered
pleas
jurisdiction,
ment and
arguing
1, Wenzel,
Hubenak
and Cusack Ranch
jurisdiction
the trial courts lacked
awarded more
what the
than
condemnors
over
be-
*6
had offered for the easements.16 The
cause the
comply
condemnors failed to
in
landowners
the other four
howev-
with section
agree”
21.012’s “unable to
re-
er,
jurisdic-
supplemental pleas
filed
to the
quirement.
argued
The landowners
that
tion based on
Hubenak
San Jacinto Gas
the condemnors
could not
the “un-
Co.,17 in
Transmission
which the First
to agree”
able
requirement
they
unless
Appeals
Court of
in Houston
the
reversed
they
established that
had engaged in
in
judgments
trial courts’
Hubenak
faith”
“good
negotiations with the land-
2, Wenzel,
Hubenak
and Kutach and held
owners before initiating
pro-
condemnation
jurisdiction
that the trial courts lacked
be-
ceedings. The landowners asserted that
did
negotiate
cause the condemnor
the condemnors’ offers were not “bona
same rights
the
to condemn.18
fide” or made
good
in
faith because the
Cusack,
result,
As a
trial courts in
were
the
offers
to the landowners’ exe-
Demehl,
Wright
Wright
granted
and
cuting
right-of-way agreements at-
letters,
jurisdictional pleas
tached to the final
in-
the landowners’
and
which
cluded
three additional matters that
ju-
dismissed the
for want of
jury
(Tex.App.-Houston
15. The
awards were:
17.
tion and the commissioners’
as an
II
proceeding”
“administrative
that “converts
Before we consider whether
pending
objec-
the “unable
into a normal
cause” when
contained
section tions to the commissioners’ award are
21.012 of
Property
the Texas
impli-
objec-
Code29
filed.34
have also
filing
We
said that
“
jurisdiction,
cates
matter
or the
tions
the award of
special
‘vacate[s]
”35
other issues in these consolidated
it Commissioners.’
A number of courts
is helpful to understand
procedural
objections
of appeals have held that
steps in a
proceeding.
the condemnor did not
make
effort to
filing
petition required
section
during
cannot be raised
the adminis-
21.012 in either a district court
county
phase
trative
special
before the
commis-
sioners,
court at
step.
law30 is the first
aWhen
but must be
raised
the trial
filed,
petition is
judge
of the court
court after the commissioners’ award has
appoints
Court,
“three disinterested freeholders
issued.36 This
as well as courts of
who reside in the county
special
as
com-
appeals, have further held that if a land-
missioners
to assess
the damages.”31
participates
owner
hearing
These
commissioners,
commissioners
hearing
convene a
the special
the landowner
and determine the value of
waives the
complain
that the con-
condemned and
damage to the remain-
demnor did not make an
agree.37
effort to
Co.,
pet.); City
Prop.Code
§
29. Tex
21.012.
Houston v. Plantation Land
(Tex.Civ.App.-Hous
694-95
Id.
n.r.e.);
§
30.
City
21.001.
ton [14th Dist.]
writ ref'd
Crawford,
(Tex.
Dallas
S.W.
dism'd);
Id.
Civ.App.-Amarillo
§
Rabb
21.014.
writ
La Feria Mut. Canal
Tex.Civ.App.
(1910,
ref'd).
21.015,
Id.
§§
130 S.W.
writ
.016.
See,
Mineola,
e.g.,
City
Id.
Jones v.
21.018.
(Tex.Civ.App.-Texarkana
*8
1947,
ref’d);
Brown v. Lower Colo. River
Pipeline
Amason v. Natural Gas
34.
writ
682
Auth.,
240,
369,
(Tex.1984).
(Tex.Civ.App.-
S.W.2d
242
485 S.W.2d
371
Hall,
1972,
writ); City
Austin v.
Austin
no
of
330,
County
Id. at 243
(Tex.Civ.App.-Austin
446 S.W.2d
336
Denton
B ramm
(quoting
er,
1969),
grounds,
198,
rev’don other
(Tex.1962)).
181
during
prove,
then
that it
that a
can waive
indicated
landowner
complain that
was no effort
right
failed
to
there
agree
appellees
had
to
with the
on
agree.
to
have said
if the owner
We
that
the value of
land
their
to be taken.”43
commissioners’
accepted the
award
has
application
This Court
writ
refused
money
regis-
from the
and withdrawn
error in Derby, giving
opinion
of
that
court,
jurisdiction
try of the
the court has
force and
as
opinion
same
effect
an
of this
adjudicate
either the landowner’s or the
A
of
of ap-
Court.
number
other courts
State’s
contest
of
commissioners’
similarly
peals have
held or said in dicta
award,46
though
proof
even
was no
of
there
pro-
agree”
that the “unable
[or failure]
agree
effort
with the owner.47 An-
jurisdictional
vision is
or that
failure to
decision,
other
which we refused the
comply renders
proceed-
the condemnation
error,
application of
said that
if
writ
ing void.44
“the
of the land
to be con-
owner
Court,
Other
of
decisions
this
how
appearance
makes his
demned
ever, are inconsistent with the proposition
special
resists the con-
commissioners and
compliance
“unable to
merits,
proceedings upon
demnation
he
provision
necessary
subject
to bestow
of
thereby waives whatever lack
efforts to
jurisdiction.
juris
Subject
matter
matter
might
reach a settlement
there
have
diction cannot be waived.45 But
been.”48 Several
of appeals
we
other courts
690,
1974,
(Tex.Civ.App.-Galves-
(Tex.Civ.App.-Beaumont
43. 215 S.W.2d
692
writ
ref’d
1948,
d)
added).
(emphasis
n.r.e.)
ton
(stating
writ ref
authority
"no
courts have
a decree
to enter
of condemnation" unless the
44.
Pipeline
ExxonMobil
Co. v.
Inter
Harrison
attempt”
condemnor has made a "bona fide
ests, Ltd.,
188,
(Tex.App.-Hous
93 S.W.3d
192
landowner);
City
with the
Isaac v.
2002,
filed);
pet.
McKinney
ton [14th Dist.]
Houston,
543,
(Tex.Civ.App.-
60 S.W.2d
545
Ltd.,
Grace,
Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Carlisle
83
1933,
dism’d) (holding
Galveston
writ
205,
2002,
(Tex.App.-Dallas
S.W.3d
208
no
authority”
was "without
court
render a
Co.,
pet.);
Pipeline
Mercier v. MidTexas
28
judgment
proceeding
in a condemnation
712,
S.W.3d
(Tex.App.-Corpus
720
Christi
proof
when there was no
were
2000,
denied);
pet.
Marburger v. Seminole
damages).
unable to
Co.,
82,
Pipeline
(Tex.App.
957 S.W.2d
89
1997,
denied);
pet.
Houston [14th Dist.]
Pre
Kazi,
71,
Petroleum Co. v.
12 S.W.3d
Dubai
Structures,
Houston,
cast
City
Inc. v.
942
(Tex.2000);
76
Fed. Underwriters Exch. v.
632,
(Tex.App.-Houston
S.W.2d
636
[14th
539,
598,
Pugh,
Tex.
174 S.W.2d
141
600
1996,
writ);
Schmidt,
Dist.]
no
State v.
894
(1943).
543,
1995,
(Tex.App.-Austin
S.W.2d
1
545 n.
writ);
Hogan,
no
Power
Tex.-N.M.
Co. v.
824
Co.,
Pipeline
v. Natural
682
Amason
Gas
252,
1992,
(Tex.App.-Waco
S.W.2d
254
writ
240,
Jackson,
(Tex.1984);
242
State v.
S.W.2d
denied);
County,
v.
Schlottman Wharton
259
924,
(Tex.1965);
388 S.W.2d
925
see also
325,
(Tex.Civ.App.-Fort
S.W.2d
330
Worth
Corp.
Coastal Indus. Water Auth. v. Celanese
1953,
dism’d);
County,
writ
Gill v. Falls
243
Am.,
597,
(Tex.1979) (land-
S.W.2d
592
599
277,
1951,
(Tex.Civ.App.-Waco
S.W.2d
280
no
special
owner who withdrew the
commission-
writ);
404,
Defee,
Doughty
152
410
v.
S.W.2d
registry
ers'
from the court’s
waived its
award
1941,
(Tex.Civ.App.-Amarillo
writ
ref'd
challenge to the
to take
condemnor’s
w.o.m.);
County,
Cook v. Ochiltree
64 S.W.2d
litigate
property but
could continue
1018,
1933,
(Tex.Civ.App.-Amarillo
no
compensation).
issue
writ);
Studer,
Watt v.
1929, writ);
(Tex.Civ.App.-Amarillo
no
Clem
Jackson,
have likewise
that,
complain
pleading
about the exis-
waive the
had concluded
absent
agree by
adequacy
of an effort to
tence
that
were “unable
proof
appearing before the commissioners
jurisdiction,
trial court lacked
agree,” the
contesting the
resisting condemnation or
question
a fact
existed that should
and that
withdrawing
damages,49
of
amount
trial
judge.57
the trial
The
be resolved
from the court’s
the Commission’s award
This
proceedings.
court had dismissed the
In
issue
registry.50
those
question
no fact
held that there was
Court
that
complaint
to be tried was the owner’s
that the trial court should not
inadequate.51 At least
were
the proceedings.58
dismissed
that
com-
two decisions have also held
If the
“unable
efforts to
is a matter
plaint about
subject
necessary
matter
were
to confer
by the owner or it is
plead
that must be
in
jurisdiction,
judgments
then
condemna-
waived,52 even if the evidence establishes
subject to col-
would be
of law that there was no effort
as matter
construing
other
lateral
attack.59
agree.53
statutory
we have
mandatory
provisions,
inconsistency between decisions
“
of
‘the modern direction
observed
saying
agree” provision
that the “unable to
vulnerability of
to reduce the
policy is
jurisdiction and
implicates
matter
ground
judgments
final
to attack on the
can
saying
comply
failure to
be
those
subject matter
lacked
the tribunal
may
this Court to note
waived
have led
”60
thus held
Dubai
jurisdiction.’
We
Dowd,54
years after the
forty-five
v.
State
v. Kazi
section
Petroleum Co.
Derby,55
express
no
“[w]e
decision
71.031(a)
Practice and
of the Texas Civil
the trial court would
opinion on whether
Code,
foreign
permits
which
Remedies
jurisdiction of the action had
have lacked
per-
courts for
good plaintiffs
to sue
Texas
negotiate
failed to
State
Auth.,
ing
the condemnor
485
that it was incumbent on
49.
v. Lower Colo. River
Brown
1972,
369,
of efforts
(Tex.Civ.App.-Austin
plead
that the owner waived lack
S.W.2d
371
Hall,
writ); City
v.
446 S.W.2d
agree).
no
Austin
330,
1969),
(Tex.Civ.App.-Austin
336
rev’d
(Tex.1970);
grounds,
“The
rule is where the cause
recognized,
court
least one other
has
remedy
action and
for its enforcement
a
statutory requirement that
construing a
common law
are derived not from the
reasonable,
authority
condemning
make
statute,
statutory pro-
but from the
negotiate
prereq-
as a
good faith efforts to
exclusive,
mandatory
visions are
commencing
pro-
uisite to
“
complied
respects
must be
with
all
to be a
‘jurisdiction’
proven
has
ceedings,
the action is not maintainable.”
elastic, diverse,
disparate
‘word of
“
”67
‘[Tjhere
presumption
jurisdic-
con-
That court likewise
meanings.’
court,
although
tion where
is one
requirement
that a
cluded
jurisdiction,
general
special
exercises
on the court’s
“is not a restriction
statutory powers
special statutory
Thus, although
jurisdiction.”68
matter
according
manner or otherwise than
manda-
requirements
section 21.012’s
are
law,
the courts of the common
since
consolidated
tory, the trial courts
these
under
such circumstances
the court
jurisdiction over the condemna-
cases had
special pow-
stands with reference to the
regardless of whether the
proceedings
footing
er exercised on the same
condemnors satisfied the
jurisdic-
courts of limited and inferior
on the
parties
“are unable
”64
tion.’
disapprove
therefore
damages.” We
determined,
that have
however,
appeals decisions
that this dichoto-
those court of
We
statutory re-
suggested
ac-
that these
my
statutory
between common-law and
held or
jurisdictional.69
are
antiquated
problematic,
quirements
tions was
stat-
(citing
Id. at 73-74
Civ. Prac. & Rem.
66.
Id.
Tex.
71.031(a)).
§
Code
Lambert,
(Colo.
870 P.2d
67. Minto v.
at 76-77.
Id.
cert.denied).
Ct.App.1994,
(1926), over-
63. 115 Tex.
65.Id. at 76.
Having engage determined that section can in negotiations for requirements jurisdiction 21.012’s are not condemned, just the land to be as al, we must determine appropriate would have done before the *12 remedy a when condemnor fails to meet were initiated. We therefore conclude those requirements and a landowner has that if a objects landowner in a pleading timely objected. the Because statute is offer, that there has been no and a trial silent as to the consequences for noncom court requirement finds that the pliance, purpose we look to the statute’s in parties are “unable to on the dam- determining proper remedy.70 the The 74 met, ages” has not been the trial court purpose of section 21.012’s “unable to should abate proceedings the for a reason- “ agree” requirement litiga is to ‘forestall period able of time to allow the condemnor prevent and to needless to the agree” require- “unable may courts when the matter have been ment. If at end of a period reasonable by settled negotiations between part time, of the condemnor has not made an ies.’”71 considering remedy for offer, the proceeding should noncompliance with requirements of be dismissed. statutes with similar purposes, we have repeatedly held that is not neces dismissal sary to purpose.72 Rather, achieve such a IY goal protracted statute’s —avoidance procedural by vehicle chosen
litigation
accomplished by requir
be—can
they
the condemnors to determine whether
ing an
proceeding
abatement of the
until
agree”
were “unable to
with the landown
requirement
“are un
ers
the cases
us
a motion for
agree”
able to
has been satisfied.73
before was
While
abated,
the condemnation
partial summary
are
judgment. Trial courts
Albertson’s,
Sinclair,
Sinclair,
Inc. v.
984 S.W.2d
(holding
In McKinney Independent School Dis-
dent commissioners will have reached a
Grace, Ltd.,
trict v. Carlisle
the court held
determination of
before the land-
fact
that a condemning authority
may
owner
even raise the “unable to
did not wait for a counteroffer from the
agree” objection.
If the landowner ac-
landowner is “no evidence to support the
cepts
assessment,
the commissioners’
trial court’s non-finding on the unable-to- matter is at an end.
It
is
after the
agree requirement.”81 That court also
rejected
landowner
by
has
held,
reject
“We likewise
[landowners’]
condemnor,
independent
and after
commis-
contention that
failure to
[condemnor’s]
sioners reach a conclusion and it is clear
provide them with
appraisal
sup-
...
litigation
going
proceed,
ports
negative
finding on the unable-to-
landowners can
raise the “unable to
agree requirement.”82 Second,
issue.86
whether an offer
proceedings argue
current
that there
condemning authority was made in “good
is at least an inference that
they were
would,
faith”
in most
be determined
willing to continue to negotiate, even
in large
measure
the reasonable market
though they
rejected
either
ignored
of-
value
sought to be con-
fers
we,
that the condemnors made. But
*14
demned or the amount of inverse condem-
like the court in McKinney, reject such a
nation damages, or both. The
inquiry
contention.83
the trial
condemnation
court’s
proceed-
persuaded
We are also
the dollar
ing
determine the reasonable market
—to
amount of the
generally
offer
should not
value of
property sought
to be con-
be scrutinized. The decisions that have
demned and
inverse condemnation
implicitly
explicitly
concluded that the
largely
thus be
duplica-
—would
dollar amount of the condemnor’s offer
purpose
tive. The
of section 21.012’s re-
should not
compared
be
with other indica-
quirement
parties
that the
be “unable to
tions of value are consistent with the statu-
require
is not to
a trial on reason-
tory scheme, which does not contemplate
able market value before the condemnation
such an examination.84 Nor does the stat-
may begin.
trial
The condemnation trial
contemplate
ute
subjective
inquiry into
will
property’s
determine the
value and
“good faith.”
earlier,
As discussed
any damage to the remainder.
pur-
No
purpose of the
litiga-
statute is “to forestall
pose would be
by delaying
served
prevent
and to
needless appeals.”85
An inquiry
subjective
into
determination to
“good
first decide whether
faith”
of a condemnor’s offer
condemning authority’s
would be anti-
offer was so low
First,
thetical to
purpose.
this
indepen-
and made under such
that it
circumstances
cast.”).
81. 83 S.W.3d
(Tex.App.-Dallas
shall be
But see Mercier v. MidTexas
pet.).
no
Pipeline
(Tex.App.-
Corpus
denied)
pet.
(finding
Christi
82. Id.
because
Ap-
condemnor’s offer was twice the
praisal
appraisal,
District’s
the offer was
(rejecting argument
83. Id.
that because land-
"bona-fide”).
express
owners "continued to
an interest in
negotiating,”
were not unable to
Hubenak,
agree).
(quoting
The condemnors have established good attempt negotiate” “a faith shown made offers each of the that the condemnor had filing proceedings. spite of the fact rejected ignored by Those offers were greater rights through negotiations sought enough the landowners. That is That court said: than it condemned.88 par- section 21.012’s It is true that the instrument which For the rea- agree.” ties were “unable first the defendants plaintiff turn, find no sons which we now we than the ultimate execute was broader remaining merit in the landowners’ bases condemned, pos- in that it involved contending that the condemnors have *15 to, entry upon and the damage sible not as a the established matter law surface of defendants’ land. Neverthe- agree” requirement. “unable to less, record, plaintiff on this we think y attempt nego- faith to good has shown a of- spread tiate. The wide between the The do not contend and the de- fering price plaintiff that the condemnors’ final offers included of the physical in property defendants, land addition to or the based on their mand of different from that con described the differing theories of value for the stor- petition. demnation But the landowners age rights, practical shows that no solu- consistently pointed to the fact that have through tion could have been reached the condemnors’ final offers all included negotiation.89 further that not in explicitly three matters were that an Supreme Court held Oregon The petitions cluded the condemnation agree” requirement was met “unable to could argued have that the condemnors pay though the condemnor offered even legally acquire not them condemnation. only that the permitted for easements contend, Thus, con- the landowners the road, and recross the but owner to cross they demnors never made offers for what the owner proceedings, condemnation the legal actually sought to condemn or could therefore, through use the road condemn, permitted not met was ly Buckles, Light Peoples & Coke Co. v. 87. ExxonMobil Pipeline Inter Gas Co. Harrison (1962). Ill.2d 182 N.E.2d ests, Ltd., (Tex.App. 196-97 filed). pet. Dist.] Houston [14th Id. The Oregon though reservation.90 court conclud- ments even the condemnation com- litigation plaint specific ed that was evident from the that was there would be four towers, that the parties agree, pre-litigation itself the could not while offer was not as to specific court the number of towers and the also noted the that owner had required rights certain $70,000 ingress demanded while the condemnor egress and removal of endangering ob- $4,000, offered “it concluding, is hard for structions, none of which part were believe us to that there is chance that proceedings.96 condemnation parties could agreement the reach an out- side court.”91 concurring opinion instant the case, case cites another Indiana Dzur v. Jersey The New Supreme Court held Co.,97 Indiana Northern Public Service a challenge to the fides of “bona Jersey Supreme and another New Court purchase” offer merit had no even case, R. Jersey v. The Central Co. Newof though pre-condemnation offer was to Co., 98- Terminal Railway Hudson purchase simple a fee interest and the law proposition pre-condemnation that a did allow a fee estate to simple be mirror rights must described acquired by condemnation.92 petition condemnation before it can be said An Indiana statutory court has held that were unable requirements though were met even to be cond required condemnor’s offer would have cases, however, emned.99 Those are dis easement, express merger of a former tinguishable because condemnors rights all under it governed to be purchase than more land argued new easement.93 The landowners legally were entitled to condemn. attempting condemnor was to Dzur, condemnor purchase offered to away” “winkle ... [sic] the landowners’ utility 200-foot-wide easement and later in “old rights litigation.”94 The court said sought property. to condemn the same purpose “obvious of the language Supreme The Indiana Court determined pre-condemnation was [in offer] that the condemnor to a was entitled up problems growing clear title out of the 150-fooh-wide easement and held easements,” previous could be ac- which could not re *16 landowners, rejected cepted by the and until commence condemnor .made that this additional matter did not render separate offer for a easem 150-foob-wide “inadequate.”95 the offer ent,100 Terminal, In Hudson the New That same Indiana court held that a Jersey court determined that statute statutory require- condemnor had met only authorized a railroad to land condemn Foster, 90. Mill & Moore Lumber Co. v. 216 95. Id. Or. 204, 39, (1959). 336 P.2d 60 Ind., 96. v. Pub. 158 Ind. Serv. Co. Blaize of 204, (1973). App.
91.
Id.
301 N.E.2d
865-66
(1972).
97.
Forge
County
Camden
257 Ind.
up
place.
submitting
evidence that
much more land.
burden
had
condemn
agree.
land
pro
were unable to
The
The court said that the condemnation
any
with
conten
ceedings
respond
could not
until
owners did
commence
the value of the three
condemnor made an offer
a 100-
tion or evidence of
land.101 Unlike Dzur
they
complain
about
now
strip
foot
matters
which
Terminal,
ac
Hudson
would have
the tracts of land sub
evidence
the owners
been
in the
us
if those matters had
ject
cepted
to condemnation
cases before
offers
from
offers. This lack of con
today are the same tracts of land identified
omitted
was
troverting
condemnors’ final offers to the land
evidence
noted
Cusack Ranch103
owners.
courts
(Hubenak
the consolidated Hubenak cases
us, the
In the consolidated cases before
Kutach).104
2, Wenzel,
Hubenak
judgment
summary
condemnors offered
suggests that our hold
evidence of their contacts with and offers
The concurrence
landowners,
today
a condemnor to offer
ing
to the
counter-offers
would allow
“
buy
‘only
fact
then
landowners
some
and the
acres and
condemn
any
strip
proper
accepted
that none of the landowners
a small
the comer
” 105
It
in this
ty.’
disagree.
offer.102 None of the three
in the
we
is the law
matters
proposed right-of way agreements that are
the offer must be for the same
state
in this
in the
appeal
at issue
were at
when
tract of land described
condemna
issue
us
took
In the
pre-condemnation
petition.106
cases
(02-0321):
Wright
46 NJ.L.
offered
at 294.
Condemnor
$16,228.80
$17,000.00.
The landown-
brevity,
interest of
the offers
despite
ers refused
sell
offers.
each case are summarized:
(02-0326):
highest
Wright 2
of-
Condemnor’s
(02-0213):
highest
Hubenak
Condemnor’s
$18,000.00.
in this
was
The land-
fer
case
$6,089.80.
combined
was
land-
offer
The
despite
to sell
the offer.
owners refused
they might
signifi-
owners indicated
sell for
(02-0359):
highest
Condemnor’s
offer
Cusack
cantly more.
$13,941.00.
coun-
was
The landowners
(02-0214):
highest
Hubenak
Condemnor’s
approximately
wanted
tered
$24,602.65.
land-
combined offer was
The
$35,000.00
inches
and the line buried 48
they might
signifi-
owners indicated
sell for
deep.
cantly more.
(02-0215):
highest
Condemnor’s
Wenzel
S.W.3d
103. 71
at
$14,620.38.
was
refused
regardless
sell
offer.
104. 65
(02-0216):
Kutach
The landowner said it
per
$500.00
would sell for
foot. The con-
J., concur-
105.
The proposed condemnors’ right-of-way contrary.110 agreements would given the condem- The concurrence would nevertheless right oil, nors the transport “gas, petro- hold that a condemnor cannot establish leum, products, or any liquids, other gases it was to agree” “unable with the or substances which can transported be on damages physical landowner unless the through a pipeline.” The condemnors property intangible property rights sought to condemn a gas pipe- natural purchase condemnor note, line. mirror however, We that a common physical the exact owns, property carrier operates, intangible who or manages a pipeline property transportation rights explicitly included a crude oil has subsequent of eminent and the proceeding. domain,108 transportation of natural gas opposed as The concurrence says “[t]his oil was not at issue in negotiations. is neither burdensome nor complex.”111 implies concurrence that the condem- disagree. We Oil, be for the Gladys to be con- City Mfg. Oil Co. v. Gas & demned, requires "meeting which (1913) a of the Tex. (apply- 157 S.W. 739-40 physical property minds” as to the ing ejusdem generis "and not rule of construction to necessarily upon any incorporeal timber, the more phrase conclude that "all rights”). earth, existing may stone and mineral or that right way” private be found within the in a 21.012(a). Prop.Code deed did purpose not include oil where the Tex. grant "constructing, operating was 111.002(1), (2), (3), maintaining” §§ general a railroad and the Tex. Nat. Res.Code .019(a). words "and preceded by mineral” were "timber, earth, specific stone”); more terms Coop. Hilco Elec. 141 S.W.3d v. Midlothian Butane (Jefferson, cf. J., concur- Co., Inc., (Tex.2003) Gas Ill S.W.3d ring). (observing "ejusdem generis” that the rule of "provides general Assocs., that when words Krohn, na- 110. See Marcus Cable L.P. v. designa- ture are 701-02, used in connection with the (Tex.2002) (out- particular objects persons tion of or classes of lining principles construing basic things, meaning general words interpreting private holding easement and *18 particular designa- will be restricted to the that an permitting easement its holder to use tion”). private property to construct and maintain "an electric transmission or distribution line system” or did not allow the easement to be 111. 141 S.W.3d at (Jefferson, J., concur- lines); used for Right cable-television Way ring). of if the even proceeding, domain simple a matter to de eminent
While is in pur- physical property intangible rights precision scribe with more exactly mirror subject to the condemnation did not that would be chase intangible proper by proceeding, inclusion condemna- sought or obtainable those ty petition in a condemnation does rights tion. “bright-line easily
not lend itself to the by concurrence. The proposed rule” VI a condemnor could obtain intangible rights reasons, conclude we foregoing For may by agreement with the landowner are not requirements 21.012’s that section rights the condem- always parallel not But, entity condemning if jurisdictional. a judgment a by nor obtain virtue of would meet- petition without files a condemnation versa) (and and a because a contract vice and a requirements, ing section 21.012’s are different animals. For ex judgment timely condemnation opposing landowner although might one not be able to ample, abatement, should the trial court requests obligation a landowner’s to warran obtain a reasonable abate ty and defend title condemnation to the condemnor permit time to (which decide), a final judgment we do not conclude, statutory requirements. We degree warranty,112 in of itself a however, in the cases that the condemnors precisely cap and a condemnor could not with section today complied us type warranty private ture that a parties be 21.012’s assignments agreement. regard With to According- damages.” to “unable easements, pipeline an easement for a (1) ly, judgments affirm the we by a in an emi obtained common carrier Hubenak Hubenak courts could, at a mini proceeding nent domain (2) Ranch; Wenzel, Kutach, and Cusack transferred, mum, sold, conveyed be or to judgment appeals’ affirm the court of operate common a another carrier pipe trial that case to the and remand Cusack an ex line as a common carrier without (3) re- proceedings; and court for further right a in the con plicit request such judgments appeals’ verse the court of Thus, petition.113 require demnation Demehl, 1, Wright 2 and re- Wright of symmetry purchase exact between the trial respective cases to their mand those be con property rights fer and the proceedings. further courts for impediment could create an to the demned process that is not contem concurring a filed Justice JEFFERSON plated by purpose of the “unable opinion. Generally, it is suffi agree” requirement. and Justice O’NEILL negotiated for the Justice cient that participate did general same SCHNEIDER physical property same of the later decision. use became (“A judgment (governing § of a judgment § 12.014 transfer 21.065 Prop.Code
112. See
Tex.
action);
chapter
Pipe
under this
vests
Valero Eastex
court
cause of
see also
condemnor.”).
Jarvis,
(Tex.
granted
ato
line Co.
denied) (stating
pet.
App.-Tyler
(de
111.0194(a)
§
113. See Tex Nat. Res.Code
assignable
are
in Texas”
"pipeline easements
presumption applicable
certain
scribing
assign
holding
could
its
that condemnor
judgments pertaining
grants or condemnation
proceeding or
in a condemnation
interest
carrier
held
a "common
to easements
judgment
pursuant
Prop.Code
Tex
to the
pipeline,
a successor in interest
12.014).
pipeline”); Tex.
Prop.Code
common carrier
*19
n
Jefferson,
Justice
concurring.
quire
rights
the
in
Right
described
added.)
Way Agreement.”
(Emphasis
In
each of these
the landowners
that,
The landowners were told
unless
have asserted that the condemnors failed
Right
executed
Way
Agreements,
satisfy
unable-to-agree
petition
condemnors would
to condemn
prior
filing
I agree
suit.
with them.
I
rights
agreements
those
described.
also
with the Court that the require-
rights
But
Agree-
described
jurisdictional
that,
ment is not
when
that,
provisions
fact,
ments included
the condemnor has not shown an inability
condemnors did not seek to condemn. The
agree,
the case should be abated for a
Right Way
Agreements sought, for ex-
reasonable
time until
the condemnor
ample, the right
transport
just
natu-
makes an
purchase
offer to
property.
gas,
ral
but “any
liquids,
other
gases or
Under
unique
circumstances of these
substances which can be transported
cases, however, abatement would serve no
through
pipeline.” They
also
purpose. Accordingly,
join
I
parts
I
obligate the
“to
warrant and
through III of
opinion
the Court’s
and its
defend title to the easement.”
judgments.
us,
In one of the eases before
Hubenak
I
Co.,
v. San Jacinto Gas Transmission
appeals initially
S.W.3d
the court of
Agree” Requirement
The “Unable to
held that
San Jacinto failed to
Property
that,
provides
Code
before
unable-to-agree requirement
filing
filed,
condemnation suit is
the condem-
a condemnation
petition.
opinion by
nor must
be “unable to
with the
O’Connor,1
Justice
the court wrote:
owner of the property on the amount of
San Jacinto should have first made an
damages,” and the condemnor must specif-
for the rights that were out-
ically plead
inability
petition.
its
lined
the board of directors resolution.
TEX. PROP.CODE
21.012. This re-
That offer would have been bona fide.
quirement was intended “to
litiga-
forestall
If San Jacinto
rights,
wanted additional
prevent
tion and
needless
to the
it
money
could have then offered more
courts when
may
the matter
have been
rights.
skipped
those
San Jacinto
by negotiations
settled
par-
between the
step.
negotiated
first
It never
Rankin,
ties.” County
Nueces v.
rights
ultimately
sought to con-
457 (Tex.Civ.App.—Eastland
demn. Accordingly,
pre-
San Jacinto
writ).
1957, no
sented
evidence that its
offer was
In each of the
today,
cases we review
good faith or that negotiations would
pre-suit
condemnors’
offers included a
have been futile.
“FINAL OFFER RIGHT OF WAY
AGREEMENT” for “a
Pipe-
Natural Gas
Hubenak v. San Jacinto Gas Transmis
offers,
line.” The
“in an
1-99-691-CV, 1-99-959-CV,
made
effort to sion
Nos.
1-99-1359-CV,
avoid further expense
litigation,”
1-99-1360-CV,
con-
2000 WL
you
reject
offer,
cluded: “If
elect to
(TexApp.
this
[14th Dist.]
—Houston
2000)
may
[the
July
(opinion
condemnor]
institute a condem-
withdrawn Dec.
court],
2001);
nation suit in
designated
[a
to ac-
Corp.
see also Cusack Ranch
retirement,
1. After Justice O’Connor's
unable-to-agree
demnors had satisfied the
re-
granted
rehearing
court
the motion for
quirement.
193 395, opportunity Pipeline given MidTexas 71 399 the owner is S.W.3d price only property that in a that (agreeing specific method outlined initial sell at approach subject Hubenak decision is the “better to condemnation. condemnor,” although declining
for the Furthermore, pretense a or of threat require approach). such an by condemnor condemnation made rights on land or for
Similarly, in Pipeline MidTexas Co. v. Demehl, and made in order to ob- condemnation court appeals of held —cor- rights property tain additional or consti- rectly, my opinion MidTexas —that act of the wrongful tutes a and abuse satisfy unable-to-agree failed to re- domain. right of eminent quirement it because did not make an offer encompassing only rights it those could appeals adopted Id. at 861. The court of seek to condemn: I approach Wright this same and legislative
[T]he
intent for
bona fide
[the
Wright II. 141
2002 WL
S.W.3d
attempt
agree] requirement
was to
(No.
Court);
02-0321 in this
141
264833
necessity
litigation
avoid the
if
(No.
S.W.3d
This ings, does not and does not the offer must not be rather, imply on a capricious; the condemnor cannot make offers must be based purchase property rights reasonably thorough investigation for and just acquire by which it cannot assessment of the amount of honest However, re proceedings. compensation such an offer due the landowner as a taking.” from sult separate apart should be made 1992) added), (Tex.App. (emphasis law prerequisite the offer made as —Austin Hipp denied as to and rev’d sub nom. to condemnation. This does not mean writ Dowd, as to State grounds to be condemned cannot be on other (Tex.1993). Dowd, offer, separate long as as part State, (Ind.1941)) (citations Ryan required precon- omitted); the court *21 Sackman, demnation “as to the amount see 6 L. also Julius Nichols on Domain, which by 24.14[1], would be sustained Eminent at 24-234-35 (3d 2004) (“If him as a result 21 condemnor, condemnation.” ed. after (Tex.Civ.App. 598 a making acquire particular an offer to —Waco writ) added). 1929, no (emphasis thereof, property or a specific part under- took prop- to condemn other and different jurisdictions adopted Other a simi- erty quantum or a thereof than it offered approach. lar Supreme The Indiana Court purchase, to pur- there was no effort to that, held has before a condemnor can satisfy chase for the land taken to “inability assert agree,” to it must have negotiation requirement. Similarly, if the only made an property sought offer for the prop- condemnor’s offer includes additional to be condemned. See Dzur v. N. Ind. acquire erties that it cannot through con- Co., Pub. Serv. 257 Ind. 278 N.E.2d proceedings, demnation it has not satisfied (Ind.1972) 563 (holding that landowner’s good negotiation faith requirement.”). rejection of purchase offer to 200 foot Likewise, inability easement did not demonstrate Jersey to Supreme New agree, because 150 foot easement was the a pur- Court held that railroad’s offer to condemned). largest land, that could be parcels The chase three when the rail- smaller, court held: legally road could a condemn land, strip one-hundred-foot not an was purchase “An effort to property offer requirements sufficient to sought acquired to be is a condition instituting for proceeding: a condemnation precedent to the to maintain an action to condemn. There can be no If, then, petitioner power has not to compliance with this unless condemn all the land in the described subject of negotiation is clear to both petition, proceedings can these be main- parties, a meeting since of the minds is tained for so much as is hun- within the essential to the existence a valid con- A strip? single dred-feet consideration tract. If a an [condemnor] makes shows that the must stand acquire particular a property, or a or fall in applying toto. Before to the thereof, specific part which offer is re- justice commissioners, company for jected by the utility, owner of the and if must have been unable to with the the [condemnor] then undertakes to con- purchase owner for the of the land re- demn property other or different than quired. The petition avers that purchase, which it has offered to company not agree could with the own- cannot be said that an effort was made price ers as to the of all the lands de- purchase that which it to con- manded; but it means follows demn. bargain could not have been made for strip. sale of the hundred-feet opportu- owners are entitled to have an It is conceivable that if the offer to nity presented for such a contract purchase had related their land can be taken condemna- which is the of the condemnation proceeding tion. Hence entire proceeding, might the offer have been illegal. accepted, litigation which event this would not have necessary.” been Ry. State The Hudson Terminal (N.J.1884); (quoting Corp. Id. Ind. Serv. v. N.J.L. see also Prai Flora, Town Cherry County, 218 Ind. 31 N.E.2d rie View Tel. Co. (Neb.1965) carrying some other substance pipeline Neb. 138 N.W.2d radioactive material —a (say, example, (holding county good did not make of). See, e.g., unheard practice that is not faith attempt because the land Pipeline Uranium Opposes Tribe Utah pro owners “were never offered a definite Gazette-Journal, Slurry, Reno Tailings posal right-of-way as to the exact to be (detailing opposition Apr. Utes’ acquired, consequently were never in carry pipeline of a radio- construction position acceptance to make absolute tailings). active uranium thereof’). *22 I no “provide[ ] The Court contends that today
The Court concludes that the con- authority” a broad construction” for “such demnors unable-to-agree satisfied the re- (though is- suggests preemptively the quirement, pointing fact to “the that none us) language is not that sue of the accepted any offer.” narrowly. would in fact be construed more improper equate rejection But it is to anof hardly But the condemnors’ words could comprehends rights greater offer that than clearer; lan- imagine be is difficult to sought to those be condemned with refusal “any liquids, than guage broader other only property rights to sell those gases or substances which can be trans- sought could or be were to be condemned. ported through pipeline.” (Emphasis a Indeed, pays the Court little heed to the added.). Moreover, that, disagree I be- Legislature’s requirement that the parties included gas pipeline cause a natural was be unable to on the amount of dam- for a to pipeline transport within the offer ages, holding that “[t]he condemnors have substance, the satis- any condemnors have they established that to made offers each statutory requirements. fied the One filing of the landowners before condemna- rejected “greater court of has this proceedings. Those were re- offers theory”: includes the lesser jected ignored by or the landowners. That law, it would allow the this were the [I]f enough satisfy to section 21.012’s re- to an offer on a 500- condemnor make quirements that the were ‘unable of land that had been in the acre tract ” 141 agree.’ S.W.3d at 191. family generations, for five landowner’s adopted by Under the standard landown- that contained the home of the today, Court a any condemnor’s offer for er, improvements numerous made case, property rights including, inas this — landowner, un- properties and other those it does seek to condemn—would connected with the condemnation when unable-to-agree requirement. in- sought to be condemned the area Rather than discouraging litigation, only strip volved a small the corner of may standard In Court’s foment it. these property. The condemnor could cases, despite the fact that the condemnor then, theory, say under sought was authorized and to condemn the stat- negotiated required offer under only gas pipeline, a natural all final made. Such an offer ute had been offers that the condemnor would provided way any connection would “oil, to transport petro- receive condemned, and property with the to be liquids, leum products, gases other could not have certainly Legislature transported offer, which can be though substances even intended for such lesser, through pipeline.” a It is not difficult to to be greater included the in an imagine good negotiation a scenario which a landowner considered a faith property to be accepted attempt purchase would have an offer for a natural to a gas pipeline but would not consent condemned. domain proceeding pleading
Eminent
can be demnor controls its
and is unique-
[sic]
simplified
simply following
ly
the stat-
suited
include the same items it
addition,
ute
legislative
by making
and the
intent
pre-suit.
the Court’s
an offer
for the
to be
“might
statement
that a condemnor
not”
compel
condemned.
be able
landowner warrant
implies
opposite “might”
title
be
Demehl,
I
that “in-
are unable to
on
proposition
with the
property sought
to be
intangible property rights”
clusion of
to in-
impracticable.
pointless
a
condemned.
It would be
makes such
with,
con-
the condemnations on technical
begin
S.W.3d 191. To
validate
fact,
apply contrary
plain
evidence that the owners would have
the Court seems to
a
presumption, placing the
on the con-
burden
accepted the
if those matters had been
offers
produce
demnors to
"evidence of the value of
omitted from the offers.”
Notice of the hearing is sent to the land- Conclusion owner, and hearing is set for “the hold, I contrary would to the Court’s practical earliest time.” Id. 21.015-16. opinion, that the condemnors these con- If the landowner appear wishes to solidated cases did not establish inabili- evidence, present he or she If may do so. ty to agree filed suit. It is occurs, it is clear that the parties are *24 clear, however, that the landowners and unable to on damages prop- for the condemnors came to a point disagree- erty sought to be condemned. Alterna- ment litigation before true commenced be- tively, the landowner can nothing, do cause the “accepted,” condemnors and the the commissioners will hear the case and rejected, the commissioners’ enter their findings. At point, if the circumstances, awards. Under these agrees landowner with the commissioners’ met, statutory requirement was albeit at a decision, he or accept award, she can date later than that contemplated by the and the landowner is appropriately com- Legislature. reiterate, however, I pensated taking. for the If the landowner simplest cheapest solution to this or the dissatisfied, condemnor is either can problem comply is for the condemnor to objections. file Id. 21.018. At with the statute and make an offer for the time, the may landowner assert condemn, property it seeks to filing condemnor engaged has not in negotia- petition. a condemnation tions designed to obtain an agreement as damages. event, In that the trial court Accordingly, join parts I I III through must abate the require ease and the con- of opinion the Court’s and the Court’s demnor to make an property offer for the judgments.
it seeks to condemn. though these even the condem-
nors’ presuit offers were improper, it was
apparent were unable to for the be
condemned after the commissioners en-
tered their award. The landowners ob-
jected and the condemnors did not. Re-
notes
see also
See
Auth.,
Water