416 S.W.3d 237
Tex. App.2013Background
- In June 2007 the State condemned land along I-30 in Fort Worth owned by Moore, with a large historical billboard structure on the land.
- Arrington Outdoor purchased the billboard, permit, and leasehold rights in January 2006 for 1,268,454, while Moore retained the land beneath the billboard and Arrington leased it for 99 years.
- The 1998 Fort Worth ordinance prohibited new off-premises signs and required upgrades; the billboard was a legal non-conforming sign.
- Special Commissioners initially awarded 334,194 jointly to Moore and Arrington; the State deposited the award in court in November 2007.
- Arrington’s counterclaim sought compensation for inverse condemnation of its leasehold interests, sign permit, and billboard; the trial court granted partial summary judgment on compensability.
- The jury later valued Arrington’s property interests at 969,243 on the date of taking; Moore received 480,000 under a settlement with the State.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the sign permit a compensable property right in condemnation? | Arrington argues the permit is a compensable property interest. | State argues the permit is a privilege, not property, and not compensable. | Issue One.overruled (sign permit not compensable). |
| Is the billboard structure a fixture and thus part of real property requiring compensation? | Arrington contends the structure is part of the realty and compensable. | State contends it is removable personal property. | Issue Two.overruled; billboard fixture status affirmed, compensation required. |
| Was the expert appraisal of fair market value admissible and reliable, given Central Expressway limits on business income? | Arrington argues Wright’s method improperly used business income. | State argues testimony is irrelevant/reliable and misapplies law. | Issue Three.overruled; error harmless under Rule 44.1. |
Key Cases Cited
- Logan v. Mullis, 686 S.W.2d 605 (Tex. 1985) (fixture/removal and intent factors in determining property status)
- City of Argyle v. Pierce, 258 S.W.3d 674 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2008) (whether logan test applies in condemnation; Logan inapplicable per later decisions)
- State v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., 274 S.W.3d 162 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2008) (Logan test not controlling in condemnation; fixture analysis)
- Central Expressway Sign Assocs. v. Estate of Sharboneau, 302 S.W.3d 866 (Tex. 2009) (three appraisal approaches; income from business limited to two situations; affirms use of comparable sales)
- Almota Farmers Elevator & Warehouse Co. v. United States, 409 U.S. 470 (U.S. 1973) (importance of fixture vs. personal property in takings)
- Elliott v. Joseph, 351 S.W.2d 879 (Tex. 1961) (definition of owner includes lessee for takings)
- DuPuy v. City of Waco, 396 S.W.2d 103 (Tex. 1965) (property rights beyond real estate owner interest)