Short answer. Commissioners' fees are taxed as part of the costs, and generally the plaintiff pays all costs of the proceeding, except costs among rival claimants litigating between themselves; if the owner appeals and the judgment is affirmed, though, the owner bears the costs of that appeal.

What the law says

The fees of the commissioners shall be taxed as a part of the costs of the proceedings. All costs, except those of rival claimants litigating their claims, shall be paid by the plaintiff, unless an appeal is taken by the owner of the property and the judgment is affirmed, in which event the costs of the appeal shall be paid by the owner.

Rule 67, Section 12 — Costs, by whom paid. Read the full provision →

Commissioner fees are part of the costs

The fees earned by the commissioners appointed to assess the property are not billed separately outside the case; they are taxed as part of the overall costs of the expropriation proceedings, folding that expense into the same cost accounting that applies to the rest of the case. Whoever ultimately bears the costs of the proceeding therefore also bears the commissioners' fees, rather than those fees being tracked as a separate line item.

The default rule: the plaintiff pays

As the party exercising eminent domain, the plaintiff generally bears all the costs of the proceedings, one exception being the costs incurred specifically by rival claimants who are litigating their competing claims against each other, which are treated separately from the general expropriation costs. That dispute among claimants is, in effect, its own side controversy, so it is fair that those claimants bear its costs rather than the plaintiff who is not a party to that dispute.

An exception when the owner appeals and loses

That default shifts if the property owner takes an appeal and the judgment is affirmed on review. In that situation, the costs of the appeal itself are charged to the owner rather than the plaintiff, since it was the owner's unsuccessful appeal that generated those additional expenses. If the judgment is instead reversed or modified in the owner's favor, this exception does not apply and the general rule charging costs to the plaintiff continues to govern.

Why the plaintiff bears costs as a general rule

Because it is the plaintiff who invokes the power of eminent domain in the first place, placing the general cost burden on the plaintiff reflects that the proceeding exists on the plaintiff's initiative, not the owner's. Making an owner who did nothing to start the case pay its ordinary costs would run counter to that basic allocation of responsibility, which is why the appeal exception only shifts costs onto an owner who actively pursued and lost that further step.

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.