Eminent Domain - Just Compensation - Fees and Costs
Summary
SB 451 would change Maryland’s eminent domain compensation rules by requiring that, when land is taken in a condemnation proceeding, the damages awarded include not only the fair market value of the property taken but also any legal, expert, or other fees and costs incurred by the defendant in the condemnation case. The bill amends Real Property § 12-104 to make those litigation-related expenses part of “just compensation” in takings cases.
The bill also preserves and restates existing special valuation rules for particular categories of property, including partial takings, religious property, parkland and open space, land subject to certain agricultural easements, and land protected by easements donated to the Maryland Historical Trust or Maryland Environmental Trust. Its effective date would be October 1, 2026.
Impact
The bill would expand the measure of damages in Maryland condemnation actions by shifting certain transaction and litigation costs to the condemning authority, increasing the compensation owed to property owners or defendants in eminent domain cases. It would amend Article - Real Property § 12-104 and could increase public acquisition costs for state and local governments and other entities exercising eminent domain, while strengthening the financial position of landowners facing takings.
Sentiment
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate or support levels in the available materials. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears to be framed as a property-rights and fairness bill, aimed at ensuring owners are made whole when their land is taken.
Contention
The likely point of contention is whether “just compensation” should include attorneys’ fees, expert fees, and other costs of the condemnation proceeding, since that would increase the cost of eminent domain for public and private condemning authorities. Supporters would likely emphasize fairness to property owners who must defend against a taking, while opponents may argue that fee-shifting goes beyond traditional compensation and could make public infrastructure, utility, or redevelopment projects more expensive.