Stidham v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Highways

579 S.W.2d 372, 1978 Ky. App. LEXIS 671
CourtCourt of Appeals of Kentucky
DecidedApril 28, 1978
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 579 S.W.2d 372 (Stidham v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Highways) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Kentucky primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Stidham v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Highways, 579 S.W.2d 372, 1978 Ky. App. LEXIS 671 (Ky. Ct. App. 1978).

Opinion

WINTERSHEIMER, Judge.

This is an appeal from an order entered September 8, 1977, which sustained a motion to strike appellants’ exceptions and dismissed this condemnation action. Appellants owned a tract of real estate in Perry County, Kentucky, through which the ap-pellee desired to construct a highway. A condemnation action was filed on October 6, 1976, pursuant to K.R.S. 416.540 et seq. Three commissioners were appointed and made their report to the court. Appellants were required to file their answer within twenty days from the date of summons.1 Appellants included as part of their answer, exceptions to the report of award of commissioners. On January 21, 1977, appellee moved for an interlocutory judgment, which was granted on February 11, 1977.2 On March 25,1977, appellee moved to strike appellants’ exceptions, and the trial judge sustained the motion to strike. This appeal followed.

The question presented is whether the appellants complied with K.R.S. 416.610 and K.R.S. 416.620 3 in filing exceptions pri- or to the entry of the interlocutory judgment, which was before the thirty day statutory period began to run. A careful examination of the record shows that the appellants did not violate those statutory provisions, and we therefore believe the exceptions should not have been stricken.

Here, the exceptions were incorporated in the answer and, therefore, could be considered as a pleading. Civil Rule 12.06 provides that a motion to strike shall be filed within twenty days after the service of a pleading. Appellee did not file its motion to strike until more than twenty days after the appellants had filed their answer and exceptions. If appellee had filed its motion [374]*374to strike in a timely fashion, and the motion had been sustained, then the appellants would have still had time within which to file their exceptions.

When the report of commissioners is filed, the property owner can express his disagreement with the amount fixed in the report by filing exceptions. The purpose of K.R.S. 416.620 would be fulfilled, and it is unnecessary to wait until the interlocutory judgment is filed to express disagreement with the price as fixed by the commissioners. Here, the appellee waited longer than sixty days, during which time the interlocutory judgment was entered, and then continued to wait for longer than thirty days before complaining about the exceptions.

K.R.S. 416.620 is a limitations statute which prohibits the filing of exceptions at any time after thirty days from the date of interlocutory judgment but does not prohibit the filing of exceptions before the thirty day period.

Therefore, the judgment of the trial court is reversed and this case is remanded for action consistent with this opinion.

All concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Kentucky Utilities Co. v. Brashear
726 S.W.2d 321 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1987)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
579 S.W.2d 372, 1978 Ky. App. LEXIS 671, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stidham-v-commonwealth-department-of-transportation-bureau-of-highways-kyctapp-1978.