Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility
Home / Opinion / Property — eminent domain — relocation expenses

Property — eminent domain — relocation expenses

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Civil

Property — eminent domain — relocation expenses

A property owner did not lose its right to bring a claim for partition of a condemnation award by accepting payment for relocation expenses.

“[C]ontrary to the court of appeals’ determination, we conclude that Lamar did not lose its right to bring a claim for partition under Wis. Stat. §§ 32.05(9)(a)3. and 820.01 by signing the Worksheet. As the DOT explains in its amicus curiae brief, the Worksheet and Form DT1527 document the relocation payment that Lamar received from the DOT. Form DT1527 indicates that Lamar applied for and received from the DOT a relocation payment of $83,525. As detailed by the Worksheet, the $83,525 consisted of $75,175 for the cost to build the billboard new; $2,500 for relocation expenses; and $5,850 for take-down cost. In other words, $83,525 was the cost that Lamar incurred in having to remove its billboard and rebuild it onto another site, i.e., Lamar’s actual moving expenses under Wis. Stat. § 32.19(3)(a) and Wis. Admin. Code COMM § 202.64(1). As we explained in detail above, the DOT’s $83,525 payment for Lamar’s relocation expenses is distinct from the DOT’s $2,000,000 award for the fair market value of the property taken. See Wis. Stat. §§ 32.09(5)(a), 32.19(1); Wis. Admin. Code COMM § 202.001. Lamar has a right to seek not only payment for relocation expenses but also its share of the award for the fair market value of the property taken.”

Reversed and Remanded.

2010AP2023 The Lamar Co., LLC, v. Country Side Restaurant, Inc.

Ziegler, J.

Attorneys: For Appellant: Hornig, Thomas S., Madison; Byron, Kraig A., Madison; For Respondent: Braun, Hugh R., Milwaukee; DiUlio, Nicholas Robert, Milwaukee


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*