THE AITORNEY GENEWAL 

~FTExAs 

The Honorable B. L. DeBerry 

Texas Highway Department 

11th and Braeos 

Austin, Texas 78701 

Dear Mr. DeBerry: 

Opinion No. H- 113 

Re: The status of signboards 

as realty or personalty 

for condemnation purposes. 

You have requested our opinion on the following question: 

“In our condemnation proceeding, should signboards which are interred in the ground on the property 

of the landowner, lessor, be treated the same as any 

other realty such as fences, etc., or should such signboards be treated as personalty because of the special 

terms of the please agreements between the landowner 

and the lessee, . . . .‘I 

Your question is prompted by the rule of law that, under normal circumstances, personalty, because of its removable character is not included in 

determining compensation for condemnation purposes. 

The sample “leases” attached to your letter provide in one way or 

another that “all signs and improvements placed on the above mentioned 

property pursuant to this lease are now and forever the exclusive property 

of the lessee and may be removed by them at any time. ” This “lease” provision would indicate that between the parties the signs are considered personalty. 

Whether the agreements are actually “leases, ” or only licenses, 

generally, if the signs were erected and interred in the ground, they would 

b,e considered realty for condemnation purposes. In Texas, the character of 

,property as realty or personalty, for condemnation proceedings, is not affected 

by any private agreement designating its character. Texas Pig Stands v. 

p. 545 
The Honorable Mr. B. L. DeBerry, page 2 (H-113) 

Krueger, 441 S. W. 2d 940 (Tex. Civ. App., San Antonio, 1969, err. ref., 

n. r. e. ); Brasos River Conservation and Reclamation District v. Adkisson, 

173 S. W. 2d 294 (Tex. Civ. App. , Eastland, 1943, err. ref). In the Adkisson 

case, the question presented was: 

“Did the Court properly require the district to 

pay appellee for the property taken, including casing 

and other fixtures affixed to the leasehold estate, 

where the lease, producing wells, and such equipment 

were inundated by waters of the district’s reservoir, 

even though as between the Appellee as Lessee and 

the original landowners as Lessors, Appellee had the 

privilege of removing such fixtures at the termination 

of the lease?” (emphasis added) 

The Court answered in the affirmative because of the rule applied in 

condemnation cases and approved the following statement: ” . . . Where 

fixtures are of such a character that if put in by the owner, they would 

constitute a part of the real estate, they must be paidfor as ‘real estate’ 

by the party condemning the land. ” 

Accordingly, in condemnation proceedings, in determining whether 

signboards which are interred in the ground constitute realty or personalty, 

they should be treated as though they were owned and had been erected by 

the landowner, notwithstanding private agreements about the matter. 

SUMMARY 

In condemnation proceedings signboards which 

are interred in the ground should be treated as though 

they were owned and had been erected by the landowner 

in order to determine whether they constitute personalty 

or realty, notwithstanding private agreements about the 

matter. 

Attorney General of Texas 

p. 546 
The Honorable B. L. DeBerry. page 3 (H-113) 

DAVID M. KENDALL, Chairman 

Opinion Committee 

p. 547