Date: 12-13-2013

Case Style: The City of Oklahoma City v. Grant G. Wilson

Case Number: CV-2013-1142

Judge: Bryan C. Dixon

Court: District Court, Oklahoma County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Jerry R. Fent and Kenneth Jordan

Defendant's Attorney: Pro Se

Description: The City of Oklahoma City sued Grant G. Wilson on an eminent domain theory claiming to acquire by condemnation certain rights, title and interests in real property owned by Defendant for public use.

1. That the Plaintiff, The City of Oklahoma City, is a municipal corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the Constitution and laws of the State of Oklahoma and its authorized Charter. Okla. Const. Art. 2, Sec. 24.

2. That the Plaintiff is authorized by the laws of the State of Oklahoma and its Charter to take, appropriate and condemn private property for public purposes whel!ever such action may become necessary for public convenience and use. Title 66 O.S. 20] § 53 et. seq.

3. That on December 4, 2012, the City Council of The City of Oklahoma City, legally determined and declared that public necessity required the taking, appropriating, acquiring and condenming of permanent casement PARCEL NO. Olin the location of 12035 North Bryant Avenue, Oklahoma City, for public street and utility purposes and uses incidental thereto, over, across, under and to certain real property located in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, to-wit: (See Exhibit “A” attached)

Said property hereinafter referred to as “Subject Property;” plus, all right, iitle and interest in and to all land, fixtures and appurtenances within the boundaries of the Subject Property incidentally removed during the use of said easement. Public Project PC-04 15.

4. That the City Council of The City of Oklahoma City approved and adopted a Resolution on said date declaring and determining the necessity of acquiring a permanent easement over, across, under and to the Subject Property for public Street and utility purposes, and ues incidental thereto, a copy of said Resolution is attached hereto as Exhibit “B” and is incorporated herein by reference.

5. That the Defendant, GRANT G. WILSON, a single person, owns orclaims some right, title or interest in and to the Subject Property by a QUIT CLAIIv[ bEED filed in the Oklahoma County Clerk’s Office in Book 11149, Pages 75-76, on July 16, 2009: (See EXHIBIT “C”). The County Treasurer and County Assessor’s Statement is shown by EXHIBIT “D.”

6. That prior to the commencement of this action to condemn a permanent easement over, across, under and to the Subject Property under the right of eminent domain, the Plaintiff has, in good faith, offered to purchase and acquire said property from the Defendant, who is the record owner of the Subject Property or appears to hate some interest therein, for fair, reasonable and just compensation, but said Defendant has refused to accept the consideration offered and has refused to grant, sell or convey the permanent easement required by the Plaintiff, Maps of said permanent easement are attached hereto as Exhibit

7. That by reason of the foregoing it has become necessary, in orthr to acquire the permanent easement over, across, under and to the Subject Property, and to justly compensate the Defendant therefore, to institute this proceeding in condemnation of said easement.

8. My existing lien, mortgage or claim will not be impaired because the property (as security) will increase in value caused by the public project being constructed.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, The City of Oklahoma City, herein prays for an Order of this Court, sunmwning and appointing thee disinterested freeholders of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, as Commissioners to inspect the Subject Property, and to consider the damage, if any, which the Defendant will sustain by reason of the taking, appropriating and acquiring a permanent easement for public street and utility purposes, and uses incidental thereto over, across, under and to said property and that, upon payment of such damages as may be awarded herein, for the permanent easement for public street and utility purposes and uses incidental thereto over, across, under and to the Subject Property, plus al] right, title and interest in and to all land fixtures and appurtenances within the boundaries of the Subject Property incidentally removed during the use of said easement, be vested in the Plaintiff, and that the Plaintiff thereupon be authorized to enter into possession of the Subject Property for the public purposes set forth herein.


The Commissioners appointed by the Court awarded the Defendant $8,300.00.

Outcome: Settled for the Commissioners' award.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: