Relocation expenses are one thing and just compensation is another.   That’s the lesson of Lamar vs Country Side Restaurant, Inc.  Here are the facts.

• Country Side Restaurants, Inc. (“Country Side”) owned a 76,000 square foot parcel of land.  It leased a portion of the land to Lamar to construct a billboard.
• In October 2008 the Wisconsin DOT purchased land owned by Country Side.  As compensation for the taking the Wisconsin DOT issued a joint check to Country Side/Lamar for $2 million.    Most of the value was in the land but the value allocated to the sign permit was $65,000 and the value allocated to the billboard was was $65,079.
• In November 2008 a court approved Country Side’s petition that the court to accept a deposit of $120,000 for eventual distribution by court order and to allow the rest of the proceeds to go to Country Side.
• In December 2008 Country Side filed an appeal challenging the adequacy of the DOT’s $2 million purchase price.  Lamar did not participate in the appeal.
• Lamar independently filed a successful relocation claim with the Wisconsin DOT for $83,525 in expenses associated with relocating its billboard.  The relocation form contained the following general release: “The reimbursement stated on this worksheet has been reviewed and agreed to by both parties.  The sign owner or representative, by signing this document, waives any right to future claims for damage or loss involving this sign.”
• Lamar and Country Side couldn’t agree on the disposition of the $120,000 deposit from the Wisconsin DOT.    Country Side petitioned the court to rule  it was entitled to the entire $120,000 because: Lamar had failed to join its appeal of the adequacy of the $2 million purchase price; and Lamar had accepted relocation expenses which included a complete release of any further claims against the state of Wisconsin.
• In May 2012 the Wisconsin State Supreme Court ruled against Country Side and directed the lower courts to allocate the funds between Lamar and Country Side using guidelines in the Wisconsin law code.  The Wisconsin Supreme Court determined (1) Wisconsin law “makes clear that a party in interet does not lose any rights by not joining in another party’s appeal.”  (2) Lamar did not lose its right for just compensation by signing the Wisconsin DOT relocation form because the general release language in the form applied only to relocation expenses and Wisconsin law was clear that a relocation expenses must be paid in addition to just compensation for the value of property taken.

Billboard Insider’s take:  This case was complicated by the fact that the Wisconsin DOT issued only one  just compensation check instead of two.  It also shows the importance of reading all the documents and carefully questioning general release language when reviewing a transaction.

To receive a free morning newsletter with each day’s Billboard insider articles email info@billboardinsider.com with the word “Subscribe” in the title.  Our newsletter is free and we don’t sell our subscriber list.

Paid Advertisement