Short answer. The court may order the compensation paid into court itself, for the benefit of whoever is later adjudged entitled to it; payment of the awarded sum — to the defendant or to the court — is required before the government can enter the property or retain it if already possessed.

What the law says

If the ownership of the property taken is uncertain, or there are conflicting claims to any part thereof, the court may order any sum or sums awarded as compensation for the property to be paid to the court for the benefit of the person adjudged in the same proceeding to be entitled thereto. But the judgment shall require the payment of the sum or sums awarded to either the defendant or the court before the plaintiff can enter upon the property, or retain it for the public use or purpose if entry has already been made.

Rule 67, Section 9 — Uncertain ownership; conflicting claims. Read the full provision →

Depositing compensation with the court

When ownership of the property being taken is uncertain, or when there are conflicting claims to any part of it, the court may direct that the compensation awarded be paid not to any particular defendant but to the court itself, held for the benefit of whoever is ultimately adjudged in the same proceeding to be entitled to it. This keeps the money from being released to a claimant who later turns out not to be the rightful owner.

Payment as a condition to entry or retention

This mechanism does not delay the government's obligation to pay. The judgment must still require payment of the awarded sum — to either the defendant or the court, depending on the ownership situation — before the government may enter upon the property, or before it may retain the property for its public purpose if it has already entered. Uncertain ownership changes who receives the money, not whether or when the government has to pay it.

Protecting rival claimants

By channeling the payment through the court when ownership is disputed, the rule protects competing claimants from having the compensation paid out to the wrong person while their dispute is still being resolved, ensuring the money stays available for whoever is eventually declared the rightful owner. It separates the question of how much compensation is owed from the separate question of who among the claimants gets to receive it.

The dispute over ownership does not stall the taking

Because the court can hold the funds itself, an ownership dispute among private claimants does not become an excuse to delay payment, and delayed payment is what would otherwise hold up the government's entry or continued possession. The expropriation case can move forward on its own timeline while the separate question of who among the claimants owns the property gets resolved in the same proceeding.

Related provisions

Note. Statute text quoted on this page is reproduced from the official enactment and is linked to the full provision. The explanation around it is general legal information from Vivas & Nobles Law Office, not legal advice. Whether it applies to your situation depends on facts only a lawyer reviewing them can assess.