State of Oklahoma ex rel. Department of Transportation v. Billy E. and Martha J. Little, Husband and Wife, and the Cherokee County Treasurer, 2004 OK 74

Summary

The Oklahoma Supreme Court held that relocation assistance statutes were not the exclusive remedy for recovering unreimbursed moving and related expenses in a condemnation proceeding. The court also held that the record did not establish that the jury awarded duplicate compensation for improvements and relocation-related costs. It vacated most of the Court of Civil Appeals’ opinion but left undisturbed the required post-remand reduction and award of an appeal-related counsel fee because the landowners had not sought certiorari relief on those issues.

Holdings

1. The federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act and the Oklahoma Relocation Assistance Act are not exclusive remedies for moving and related expenses when those expenses are recoverable as an element of just compensation in a state condemnation proceeding.
2. Reasonable moving and related expenses caused by a condemnation are recoverable as an element of just compensation under Oklahoma law, whether the taking is characterized as total or partial.
3. The landowners were not required to exhaust administrative remedies before seeking moving expenses in the condemnation proceeding, and the record did not establish an administrative determination that could preclude their claim.
4. The record did not establish that the jury awarded duplicate compensation for improvements, utilities, septic-system work, or relocation expenses, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the challenged evidence.

Questions Presented

1. Whether receipt of an administratively determined relocation-assistance payment precluded the landowners from seeking reimbursement for additional relocation expenses in the condemnation proceeding.
2. Whether the federal and Oklahoma relocation assistance acts provided the exclusive remedy for moving and related expenses arising from a condemnation.
3. Whether the record established that the jury awarded duplicate compensation for improvements and relocation-related costs.
4. Whether the Court of Civil Appeals' remand for a reduction of the judgment could be disturbed when the landowners had not filed their own certiorari petition.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded