814 N.W.2d 159
Wis.2012Background
- DOT condemned Country Side’s land, part of which Lamar leased for a billboard; DOT awarded $2,000,000 jointly to Country Side and Lamar.
- Lamar received relocation payment of $83,525 from the DOT separate from the $2,000,000 award.
- $120,000 from the award was deposited with the circuit court for distribution; the two owners could not agree on its division.
- Country Side petitioned to disburse the $120,000 to itself; Lamar petitioned for partition of the deposit.
- Circuit court disbursed the $120,000 to Country Side, and the court of appeals upheld on different grounds.
- Lamar challenged, arguing it retained a right to a share of the award and to seek partition; the Supreme Court reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lamar lost its right to a share of the damages award. | Lamar did not lose rights by nonjoinder in appeal. | Country Side and the DOT argued Lamar’s rights were extinguished by appeal nonjoinder. | Lamar did not lose its right; partition claim proper. |
| Whether Lamar waived its right by accepting relocation payments. | Relocation payment is distinct from the fair market value award; rights remain. | Worksheet/DT1527 released all listed items, including relocation costs. | Waiver did not extinguish partition rights; relocation payments are separate. |
| Whether the unit rule governs valuation when multiple owners hold interests. | Unit rule requires fair market value of whole property, then apportionment. | DOT paid once for the whole property, with apportionment later. | Unit rule applied; value determined once for whole property. |
| Whether § 84.30 governs Lamar’s claims when billboard was conforming. | § 84.30(8) not applicable to conforming signs; exclusive remedy is § 32.05. | § 84.30(8) provides exclusive remedy in some billboard removals. | § 84.30(8) not controlling here; Lamar retains other remedies. |
Key Cases Cited
- Vivid, Inc. v. Fiedler, 219 Wis. 2d 764 (Wis. 1998) (exclusive remedy; conforming vs nonconforming signage distinguished)
- Adams Outdoor Adver., Ltd. v. City of Madison, 294 Wis. 2d 441 (Wis. 2006) (billboard value site-focused; location drives value)
- City of Milwaukee Post No. 2874 v. Redevelopment Auth. of Green Bay, 319 Wis. 2d 553 (Wis. 1983) (unit rule; value as if one owner; apportionment after valuation)
- Maxey v. Redevelopment Auth. of Racine, 94 Wis. 2d 375 (Wis. 1980) (unit rule application; valuation for multiple interests)
- 260 N. 12th St., LLC v. DOT, 338 Wis. 2d 34 (Wis. 2011) (clarifies relocation vs. FMV; relocs separate from FMV)