STATE ex rel. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION v. LAMAR ADVERTISING OF OKLAHOMA, INC.
2014 OK 47
| Okla. | 2014Background
- ODOT condemned a billboard site and associated leasehold after acquiring the underlying land for an I‑40 improvement; Lamar had removed and retained the billboard structure.
- Commissioners awarded Lamar $212,500; ODOT demanded a jury trial and the jury awarded $206,000. Both parties appealed; appeals consolidated.
- ODOT argued the billboard is a trade fixture/personal property so compensation should be limited to relocation cost or depreciated reproduction cost.
- Lamar argued fair market value of the sign site (including income potential) governs valuation and relocation was not feasible; Lamar used a gross rent multiplier to value the site much higher than ODOT’s cost‑approach valuation.
- Trial court excluded evidence of relocation, denied ODOT’s summary judgment and Daubert motions, and instructed commissioners/jury to consider all recognized appraisal methods; Oklahoma Supreme Court affirmed the verdict.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (ODOT) | Defendant's Argument (Lamar) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Characterization: personal vs. real property | Billboard is a trade fixture/personal property; compensation limited to relocation or depreciated cost | Characterization irrelevant; owner entitled to fair market value of property interests | Court: characterization unnecessary — statute and precedent require fair market value for structures/improvements; treat as property interests entitled to market value |
| Admissibility of advertising income in valuation | Income from sign face rentals improperly awards lost business profits and should be excluded | Income is a market factor; gross rent multiplier reflects what buyers pay for sign sites | Court: income evidence admissible to show effect on fair market value but not as separate business‑profit damages |
| Exclusion of relocation evidence | Relocation cost should be relevant and admissible | Relocation not feasible due to local ban; evidence should be excluded | Court: trial court did not abuse discretion excluding relocation evidence where record supported infeasibility |
| Burden of proof & attorneys’ fees | Condemnor demanded jury trial so burden should shift; fees statute unfair to condemnee | Condemnee argues due process and unfairness of fee trigger favoring condemnor | Court: longstanding rule places valuation burden on condemnee; fee statute applies only if jury award exceeds commissioners’ award by 10% — not triggered here |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Dep’t of Transp. v. Norman Indus. Dev. Corp., 41 P.3d 960 (Okla. 2001) (just compensation equals value of property taken)
- Finley v. Bd. of County Comm’rs, 291 P.2d 333 (Okla. 1955) (income evidence may aid jury in determining market value depreciation)
- State ex rel. Dep’t of Highways v. Robb, 454 P.2d 313 (Okla. 1969) (business income admissible to show impact on market value but not as separate damages)
- Sill Corp. v. United States, 343 F.2d 411 (10th Cir. 1965) (no single required appraisal method; comparable sales, reproduction cost, or income may be used)
- Nichols v. Oklahoma City, 157 P.2d 174 (Okla. 1945) (once taking proven, condemnee bears burden to prove value)