Title: Adams Outdoor Advertising v. Long

State: virginia

Issuer: Virginia Supreme Court

Document:

Present:  Carrico, C.J., Compton, Lacy, Hassell, Keenan, 
Koontz, JJ., and Poff, Senior Justice 
 
ADAMS OUTDOOR ADVERTISING 
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 
 
v.  Record No. 960944 
OPINION BY JUSTICE ELIZABETH B. LACY 
                                      February 28, 1997 
ROBERT E. LONG 
 
 
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF HAMPTON 
 
Walter J. Ford, Judge 
 
 
This case involves competing claims to ownership of a 
billboard located in the City of Hampton on land owned by 
Robert E. Long and leased to Adams Outdoor Advertising Limited 
Partnership (Adams).  On October 6, 1993, Long notified Adams 
that he was terminating the lease.  Adams accepted the 
cancellation, effective November 5, 1993, and told Long that it 
would have electrical service disconnected and would schedule 
the demolition of the billboard for the first week of November. 
 Long wanted to use the billboard to advertise his own business 
and filed this action to enjoin Adams from demolishing or 
removing the billboard.  Long's request for relief was based on 
his claim that the billboard was affixed to and part of the 
land and, therefore, he, as landowner, owned the billboard.  
Adams filed a separate bill of complaint asserting that the 
leases entered into over the years provided that the lessees 
owned the billboard.  Both Adams and Long sought, and received, 
temporary injunctions and executed injunction bonds.  Adams was 
enjoined from removing or destroying the billboard, although it 
was permitted to place public service announcements on it.  
Long was enjoined from using or altering the billboard.   
 
The cases were consolidated for trial and referred to a 
commissioner in chancery.  Following an ore tenus hearing, the 
commissioner concluded that Long owned the billboard.  The 
trial court overruled Adams' exceptions to the commissioner's 
report, affirmed the holding of the commissioner, and continued 
the case for a hearing to determine damages.  By final order 
entered February 14, 1996, the trial court awarded Long $7,190 
in damages.  Adams appeals, asserting that the trial court 
erred in its determination of both ownership of the billboard 
and damages.   
 
The billboard at issue is a structure permanently affixed 
to the land.  Whether such a structure remains personalty, 
owned by the person who erected the structure, or becomes part 
of the realty, and thus owned by the landowner, is determined 
either by an agreement establishing the nature and ownership of 
the structure or, in the absence of agreement, by applying the 
three-part test enunciated by this Court in Danville Holding 
Corp. v. Clement, 178 Va. 223, 232, 16 S.E.2d 345, 349 (1941). 
 The record in this case establishes that the lease agreements 
between successive landlords and tenants addressed the issue of 
ownership rights in the billboard. 
 
The billboard was erected more than 65 years ago by 
Consolvo & Cheshire, an advertising agency.  At that time, 
Consolvo & Cheshire negotiated a lease which provided that 
"[a]ll boards and material placed on the premises" by the 
lessee were the property of the lessee and that the lessee 
could "remove their boards" from the premises on the 
termination of the lease.  Similar language regarding ownership 
was contained in leases executed between Consolvo & Cheshire 
and successive landowners in 1938 and 1945.  Subsequent leases 
executed in 1949, 1957, 1968, and 1977 between successor 
landowners and different lessees, stated that "signs, 
structures and equipment" erected by the lessee were the 
property of the lessee and could be removed by the lessee. 
 
Adams claims to be the owner under the terms of the 1977 
lease or, alternatively, under the Danville test, because all 
the leases show an intent that the lessee retain ownership of 
the billboard.  We agree that each lease does address the 
ownership of the billboard, but places ownership in the lessee 
who erected the billboard.  Consolvo & Cheshire erected the 
billboard in this case, and, therefore, Adams does not qualify 
as the owner of the billboard under the terms of any of the 
leases.  Because the lease agreements clearly address ownership 
of the billboard, application of the test enunciated in 
Danville is unnecessary, and the trial court correctly rejected 
Adams' ownership claim.
1
 
The trial court also correctly held that Long was the 
owner of the billboard.  When tenants retain ownership of 
structures they erect on property and are allowed to remove the 
structures, the removal generally must occur within a 
                     
     
1Adams does not dispute the commissioner's finding that 
although there was a series of billboard leases containing 
similar language, Consolvo & Cheshire's lease was not assigned. 
 Therefore, Adams did not acquire an ownership interest through 
assumption of a previous lessee's interest in the leasehold. 
reasonable period after the end of the tenancy.  If the 
structure is not removed, it becomes the property of the 
landlord because it is affixed to the land.  1 Raleigh C. 
Minor, The Law of Real Property § 37 (Frederick D.G. Ribble 
ed., 1928).  This rule is based on a presumption of abandonment 
and protects subsequent parties from interruption by a tenant 
who returns to remove the fixtures.  8 Richard R. Powell, 
Powell on Real Property ¶ 653, at 57-52 (Patrick J. Rohan ed., 
1996).  The entry of a former tenant on the land to remove the 
structure would itself constitute a trespass.  2 Thompson on 
Real Property § 13.05(c), at 326, Thomas Edition (David A. 
Thomas ed., 1994). 
 
In this case, the tenant that constructed the billboard, 
Consolvo & Cheshire, did not remove it at the conclusion of its 
tenancy or within a reasonable time thereafter.  Consequently, 
the billboard, which was permanently affixed to the land, 
became part of the realty and the property of the landowner.  
When Long acquired the land, he acquired the billboard as part 
of the land purchased.  Therefore, we will affirm that part of 
the trial court's judgment holding that Long owned the 
billboard. 
 
We next turn to the issue of the damages awarded by the 
trial court.  Long sought $16,475 which he asserted was the 
fair market value of the billboard for the period during which 
he was enjoined from using it.  Long based this figure on 
income received by Adams from the billboard in 1992 and 1993.
2 
                     
     
2Long calculated an average daily gross income of $20.517, 
 The trial court deducted certain expenses from Long's gross 
revenue figure and awarded Long $7,190 in damages.  We agree 
with Adams that there is error in this award of damages. 
 
The record does not show the basis for Long's theory that 
his measure of damages is the fair market value of the 
billboard.  And we could find no case applying that measure of 
damages in circumstances similar or analogous to the 
circumstances in this case.  We conclude, however, that the 
proper measure of damages in this case is any damage suffered 
by Long which was naturally and proximately caused by the 
injunction.  This is the standard used when determining damages 
in an action on an injunction bond.  Carr v. Citizen Bank & 
Trust Co., 228 Va. 644, 651, 325 S.E.2d 86, 89 (1985).  Here, 
although Long did not file a separate action to recover on 
Adams' injunction bond, he made an oral motion for damages when 
the trial court ruled in his favor on the issue of ownership.
3 
 In both instances, the successful party seeks to recover 
damages for an adverse impact suffered by virtue of the terms 
of an injunction.  Thus, the rationale for an award of damages 
is the same in both instances. 
 
Applying the proper measure of damages to the evidence 
                                                                
and multiplied that figure by the number of days between the 
date of the injunction, November 3, 1993, and the date of the 
hearing on damages, January 16, 1996.  Although the injunction 
allowed Adams to display public service advertisements during 
the injunction period, Adams did not receive any revenue from 
the placement of these advertisements.   
     
3Adams did not object to Long's motion for damages, only 
to the method used by the court to determine damages. 
presented in this case, we conclude that Long is not entitled 
to any damages.  The injunction prevented Long from using or 
altering the billboard and allowed Adams to place public 
service advertisements on it.  Long testified that he intended 
to use the billboard to advertise his own business, but he 
failed to introduce any evidence of damage he suffered because 
he was prevented from advertising his own business on the 
billboard.  The only evidence he produced related to revenue 
generated and received by Adams, in the course of its outdoor 
advertising business.  This evidence has no relevance to any 
damages Long may have incurred resulting from his inability to 
advertise his own business on the billboard.  Furthermore, Long 
did not claim or produce evidence that he was damaged by Adams' 
failure to pay rent for the use of the billboard during the 
injunction period.  Accordingly, we will reverse that portion 
of the judgment awarding damages to Long and will enter final 
judgment in favor of Adams on that issue. 
                                            Affirmed in part,
                                            reversed in part,
 
and final judgment.