462 S.W.3d 68
Tex.2012Background
- Texas appeals summary judgment against it on liability and damages in an inverse condemnation against Clear Channel Outdoor.
- Clear Channel held leasehold interests in Parcels 709 and 708, with two billboards forming a V visible from Katy Freeway.
- State sought to condemn Parcels 708 and 709 for freeway expansion; special commissioners assessed value; Clear Channel asserted inverse-condemnation claims for the billboards.
- Trial court granted summary judgment that the billboards were part of the condemned realty, and the proceedings were consolidated for Parcel 708.
- Damages trial featured Clear Channel's appraisal expert Aguilar, who testified using three valuation methods, which the State challenged.
- On appeal, the State challenged (i) whether billboards were part of realty, (ii) whether condemnation intended to take the billboards, (iii) whether Clear Channel consent affected damages, and (iv) valuation testimony and sufficiency of the evidence; the court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Billboards as part of condemned realty | Clear Channel contends billboards are attached to the realty and must be compensated. | State argues billboards are personal property, not subject to condemnation as realty. | Billboards are part of the realty; compensation required. |
| Intent to condemn the billboards | State intended to condemn the property, thus including the billboards. | State argues lack of intent to condemn the billboards. | State intended to condemn the property, including the billboards. |
| Consent to taking via relocation program | Clear Channel did not consent to taking; relocation option does not nullify entitlement to compensation. | State relies on relocation program to argue consent. | Declining relocation benefits does not constitute consent to take; compensation remains proper. |
| Admission of Aguilar's valuation testimony | Income and other valuation methods are proper and reliable. | Objec tions to income and sales-method testimony should exclude. | Trial court did not abuse in admitting income-method valuation; legally sufficient evidence supports the verdict. |
| Sufficiency of the valuation evidence | Income-based valuation suffices to support the jury verdict. | Without contested methods, record might be legally insufficient. | Evidence is legally sufficient to support the jury's value finding on the billboards. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Carpenter, 126 Tex. 604, 89 S.W.2d 979 (Tex. 1936) (improvements on taken land generally part of realty)
- Almota Farmers Elevator & Warehouse Co. v. United States, 409 U.S. 470, 93 S.Ct. 791 (U.S. 1973) (fixtures attached to land treated as real estate for condemnation)
- L. Logan v. Mullis, 686 S.W.2d 605 (Tex. 1985) (fixture analysis not controlling in condemnation)
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (standard for summary judgment; no evidence and legal sufficiency rules)
- Estate of Sharboneau, 48 S.W.3d 177 (Tex. 2001) (income approach in appraisal in condemnation; multiple methods acceptable)
- Cent. Expressway Sign Assocs. v. City of Harlingen, 302 S.W.3d 866 (Tex. 2009) (three approaches to market value; income method permissible in certain contexts)
- Bristol Hotel Asset Co. v. State, 293 S.W.3d 170 (Tex. 2009) (open-market valuation principles for condemned property)
- State v. Boyle, 148 S.W.3d 171 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2004) (inverse condemnation framework)