Changes to Eminent Domain Laws
In one sentence
Plain language
Official record
Bill No.: <billno> Drafter: <drafterinit> Bill No.: SF0118 Drafter: DKG LSO No.: 13LSO-0229 Effective Date: 7/1/2013 Enrolled Act No.: SEA0081 Chapter No.: CH0201 Prime Sponsor: Senator Driskill Catch Title: Eminent domain-2. Subject: Modifying provisions relating to eminent domain proceedings. Summary/Major Elements: This act specifies that a condemnor has the burden of proving statutorily prescribed criteria in a condemnation action and that failure to do so shall result in dismissal of the action without prejudice. If a court or jury finds that the fair market value of the property being condemned is more than 115% of the final offer of the condemnor, the condemnor shall reimburse the condemnee for reasonable litigation expenses incurred after the receipt of the final offer. A public entity condemning property is to report to the Attorney General regarding attorneys fees and expenses required to be paid by the entity in condemnation actions. The Attorney General is to report this information annually to the Governor commencing July 31, 2014. Modifies a provision regarding determination of fair market value to specify that the determination may include values paid by both public and private entities. Comments: Report Required public entities must report to the Attorney General and the Attorney General must report to the Governor as noted above.
Public statements
Last checked Aug 7, 12:59 PM
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker opposes the amendment because allowing a 25% variation in offers would encourage condemnors to make lowball offers without fear of paying attorney's fees.
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker opposes Division 2 of the amendment because it allows condemnees to claim increased property values after long negotiations, even if both parties acted in good faith.
H01
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker opposes Division 2 because it includes a provision that gives condemnors a pass for failing to meet specific requirements, which he views as a fatal flaw.
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports Amendment No. 2 to add a transparency feature that reports on attorney fees paid by public entities in eminent domain proceedings.
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports Amendment No. 2 because it reveals how much state funding for highways is being spent on litigation, which he finds shocking and unnecessary.
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports Amendment No. 3 because it softens mandatory requirements by giving courts discretion to handle technical errors and consider all material options.
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker opposes Amendment No. 3 because it gives courts discretion to ignore the strict requirements adopted in 2007, effectively softening the rules for condemnors.
R · S01
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the concurrence because the House amendments improved the bill by adjusting appraisal thresholds, adding a 'without prejudice' clause to allow case re-filing if dismissed, and requiring reporting of attorney fees to ensure transparency.
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker opposes the concurrence because he believes the 'without prejudice' language allows powerful entities to repeatedly refile lawsuits against landowners until they are financially exhausted.
S23
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the concurrence by arguing that judges have low tolerance for repeated filings on small issues and that the bill does not change existing laws regarding re-filing.
R · S27
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker opposes the bill because he believes it tips the balance too far against public entities and will have negative consequences for state budgeting.
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker urges caution on passing the bill because he believes it will serve as a retirement fund for lawyers rather than solving property issues fairly.
S03
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the bill to prevent bad operators from using eminent domain to violate landowners, ensuring they make a good-faith effort before legal fees are incurred.
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker opposes the bill because he believes it will result in attorneys being paid by other parties, which has not been necessary for over 180 years.
S23
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the bill because it corrects an unfair system where companies lowball landowners and absorb legal fees as operating expenses, leaving individuals unable to fight for fair value.
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the bill as a way to create an even playing field for individuals against large companies that use their resources and lawyers to intimidate landowners into accepting low offers.
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the bill because it addresses the unfairness where citizens must pay their own legal fees while partially funding the government's side of the fight.
R · S11
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the bill because it levels the playing field against future regulatory takings that occur when information collected during eminent domain proceedings is made public, jeopardizing landowners' livelihoods.
R · S01
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the bill because it protects private property rights for ranchers who cannot afford to defend themselves against condemnation proceedings.
Wyoming roll calls
8 roll calls
Official activity
Changes
14 stored
Filed 2nd reading by MILLER
Adopted, Corrected 2nd reading by MILLER
Failed, Corrected 2nd reading by MILLER
Failed 2nd reading by STUBSON
Failed 2nd reading by STUBSON
Failed 3rd reading by ZWONITZ,DN
Adopted 3rd reading by THRONE
Failed 3rd reading by BURKHART
Failed Committee of the Whole by STUBSON
Adopted Standing Committee by H05
Adopted 2nd reading by DRISKILL
Failed 3rd reading by BEBOUT
Adopted 3rd reading by DRISKILL
Adopted Standing Committee by BURNS