Oklahoma House Bill HB2036

Oklahoma 2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/3/25
• Refer: 2/4/25
• Report Pass: 3/6/25
• Engrossed: 3/25/25
• Refer: 4/1/25
• Report Pass: 4/22/25
• Enrolled: 5/15/25
• Passed: 5/21/25

Caption

Condemnation proceedings; establishing requirements for reimbursement of certain expenses; effective date.

Summary

HB2036 revises Oklahoma’s condemnation and eminent domain reimbursement rules. The bill expands when a property owner may recover litigation-related expenses if a condemning authority fails to acquire the property, abandons the proceeding, or obtains a jury award that is sufficiently higher than the government’s valuation or written offer. It specifically addresses reimbursement for reasonable attorney, appraisal, engineering, and in some cases expert witness fees, and it makes clear that the court’s fee determination may be appealed to the Oklahoma Supreme Court as a final order. The bill also standardizes timing rules for “timely” written offers of just compensation, providing that an offer is timely if made within 75 days after the court-appointed commissioners’ report is filed. It amends related procedures in Title 66 governing review of commissioners’ reports, jury demands, and notice requirements, while also updating statutory language, references, and gendered wording. The act takes effect November 1, 2025.

Impact

HB2036 changes the fee-shifting and procedural framework in Oklahoma condemnation cases by broadening the circumstances under which property owners can be reimbursed for costs incurred in eminent domain disputes. It affects Title 27, Section 11, and Title 66, Section 55, and it adds or clarifies reimbursement standards tied to abandonment, failed condemnation, and jury awards exceeding specified thresholds. The bill also imposes a uniform 75-day deadline for condemning authorities’ written offers to count as timely for purposes of the reimbursement provisions, and it authorizes appellate review of court rulings on reimbursement awards.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have been generally well received in the Legislature, passing House and Senate committee stages unanimously or near-unanimously before receiving broad floor approval. The House committee votes were unanimous, and the Senate Judiciary Committee also advanced the measure unanimously. Final floor votes were more divided, especially in the Senate and House fourth reading, but the overall pattern suggests support for strengthening property-owner protections in condemnation proceedings while still leaving some disagreement on the scope of the changes.

Contention

The main points of contention likely concern the expanded financial exposure for condemning authorities and the broader circumstances triggering reimbursement of attorney, appraisal, engineering, and expert witness fees. Opponents may view the bill as increasing costs and litigation risk for public entities or other condemning authorities, while supporters likely see it as a fairness measure that better compensates property owners when condemnation efforts fail or when offers are inadequate. The inclusion of appeal rights and the 75-day written-offer rule may also have been debated as procedural safeguards versus added complexity.