|
|
|
Title: NEBRASKA SUPREME COURT RULES TAKING OF EASEMENT FOR SIGN CONTROL CANNOT BE SEPARATEDLY EVALUATED BECAUSE OWNERS ONLY ENTITLED TO DECREASE IN VALUE OF LAND CAUSED BY THE TAKING
Accession Number: 00238606
Record Type: Component
Abstract: THE TAKING OF CONTROL OF OUTDOOR ADVERTISING ON LAND WAS MADE COMPENSABLE BY STATE STATUTE. IN TWO CASES THE STATE TOOK PERMANENT EASEMENTS ON FARMLANDS TO CONTROL ADVERTISING ALTHOUGH THERE WERE NO SIGNS ON THE LAND. IN THE FIRST CASE, THE OWNERS ARGUED THAT THE PROPER MEASURE OF DAMAGES WAS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE VALUE OF THE LAND BEFORE AND AFTER THE TAKING. THE COURT AGREED BUT AWARDED NO COMPENSATION. IT STATED THAT THE INCOME THAT MIGHT BE PRODUCED FROM ADVERTISING WOULD BE SO SMALL IN COMPARISON TO THE INCOME FROM AGRICULTURE, THAT IN THE NEGOTIATION OF A SALE, THE FORMER WOULD BE DISREGARDED. THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO DIFFERENCE IN THE VALUE OF THE LAND BEFORE AND AFTER THE TAKING. (FULMER V. STATE, 134 N.W.2D 798, APR 1965). IN THE SECOND CASE, THE OWNER HAD AGREED, IN CONSIDERATION OF $1.00 TO GIVE THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO AN ADVERTISING COMPANY TO LEASE TWO UNDESIGNATED SIGN SITES FOR A RENTAL OF $40.00 PER SITE PER YEAR FOR 5 YEARS WITH RENEWAL PRIVILEGES FOR 5 MORE YEARS. THE OWNERS ARGUED THAT THE PROPER MEASURE OF DAMAGES WAS THE POTENTIAL SIGN RENTAL INCOME, CAPITALIZED AT A NORMAL RATE OF INTEREST. APPRAISERS AWARDED THE OWNER $1,500 AND THE STATE APPEALED TO A DISTRICT COURT WHICH RULED THAT THE OWNER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION. THE OWNER THEN APPEALED TO THE SUPREME COURT. THIS COURT HELD THAT THE 'BEFORE AND AFTER' METHOD WAS THE PROPER MEASURE OF DAMAGES AND THAT THE VALUE OF THE EASEMENT COULD NOT BE DETERMINED SEPARATELY. IT POINTED OUT THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE LAND WAS WORTH LESS NOR WAS IT SHOWN THAT THE CONTROL OF ADVERTISING WOULD INFLUENCE THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE FARM LAND. THE OWNER RECEIVED NO SIGN RENTAL INCOME AND WHETHER HE WOULD WAS VERY SPECULATIVE. HAD HE ASKED, THE OWNER MIGHT HAVE RECEIVED NOMINAL DAMAGES IN RECOGNITION OF A LEGAL WRONG. THE COURT RULED THAT THE OWNER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ANY SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGES. (MATHIS V. STATE, 135 N.W.2D 17, MAY 1965)
Supplemental Notes: No 21, pp 2-3. Distribution, posting, or copying of this PDF is strictly prohibited without written permission of the Transportation Research Board of the National Academy of Sciences. Unless otherwise indicated, all materials in this PDF are copyrighted by the National Academy of Sciences. Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Publication Date: 1966-5
Serial: Media Type: Digital/other
TRT Terms: Old TRIS Terms: Subject Areas: Highways; Law
Files: TRIS, TRB
Created Date: Mar 3 1994 12:00AM
More Articles from this Serial Issue:
|
