Partial syllabus from today’s Kansas Supreme Court opinion:
2.
Whenever federal funding is not involved, and real property is acquired by any condemning authority, K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 26-518 identifies two distinct situations requiring the authority to pay relocation benefits to a displaced person: (a) when the acquisition occurs through negotiation in advance of a condemnation action, or (b) when the acquisition occurs through a condemnation action.3.
Not every acquisition of real property by a condemning authority is covered by K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 26-518.4.
The phrase “negotiation in advance of a condemnation action” in K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 26-518 is both temporal and contextual. To be entitled to relocation benefits, a displaced person must show: (a) negotiation resulted in the property’s acquisition before any eminent domain proceedings commenced; and (b) a condemnation would have followed had that negotiation failed.5.
Whether a negotiation was in advance of a condemnation action under K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 26-518 is a question of fact to be established by a preponderance of the evidence. A preponderance of the evidence means evidence that shows a fact is more probably true than not true.6.
A finder of fact should consider any relevant evidence that might reasonably bear on establishing whether a negotiation was in advance of a condemnation action under K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 26-518. Evidence is relevant if it tends to establish a material fact at issue.