Opinion ID: 2124452
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Action for rent duplication.

Text: This action was brought by National Hardware to recover the cost of leasing a building at its new site prior to the time it had to move from its old location. The complaint alleges that portions of the new building were rented as early as October 1, 1964, with the total rent paid until January 1967, claimed to be $9,150. The county and the expressway commission demurred to this complaint. The trial court sustained the demurrer. The trial court held that sec. 32.19, Stats., did provide for various compensable items in eminent domain proceedings, but found ... nothing in this section which authorizes a rental payment by a lessee by reason of the need to acquire other premises to carry on an existing business. No claim for compensation for duplicate rent payments was filed by National Hardware with the expressway commission. The complaint in this action states that no claim was filed for these expenses under sec. 32.19, Stats., ... since that statute does not provide for the filing of a claim for this purpose.... However, the complaint also alleges that the expenditures involved related solely and directly to the taking of the two buildings previously used by National Hardware. That relates the claim to the expense of moving. However, we deal here solely with whether it was required that this claim for duplicated rent payments be filed with the expressway commission. We do not reach or decide whether such claim was required to be allowed as part of the moving expenses of National Hardware. However, we note that the phrase moving expenses need not be given any unreasonably broad interpretation to encompass, under proper circumstances and a showing of necessity, reasonably required extra lease expenses. In a condemnation case, where expenses of moving personal property were found not recoverable, our court said: Such expenditures not being recoverable, we see no reason why expenditures to secure a new location or to prevent loss of trade should be. [12] Putting together moving expenses and duplicate rent payments, our court then held: All such items of expenditures and depreciation of fixtures and other personal property as well are incident to removal from the premises.... [13] (Emphasis supplied.) The claim for duplicate rent payments must here be considered to be a claim as to an expense claimed to be incident to and a part of the moving expenses. We hold that it was required to be filed with the commission within two years of the taking of the property. It was not so filed. In asserting its right to compensation for duplicate rent expenses and to justify its not filing a claim with the commission for allowance of such claim, National Hardware relies heavily on the recent Luber v. Milwaukee County Case. [14] In that case the plaintiffs, owners of condemned property, sought recovery for rent loss for thirty-two months even though the statute only allowed recovery for rent loss for the twelve months preceding condemnation. Our court majority held that the plaintiffs were entitled to the entire rent loss amount, placing such entitlement on constitutional grounds. [15] The trial court in the case before us held Luber to its facts, finding that Luber ... is not dispositive of the question as to whether the defendant is entitled to recoup their rentals as a necessary incidental loss attributable to the taking. We agree. Luber placed the thirty-two month rent loss within the items of compensable items of damage under sec. 32.19, Stats. It did not create a new category of incidental or consequential damages which could be brought directly to court without regard to the statutory procedure as to claims and without meeting the requirement of filing a claim with the commission or public body involved in a taking before going to court. The Luber holding is to be read and limited to its holding that the twelve-month limit as to rent losses allowable was constitutionally invalid. It is true, as Luber noted, that when property is taken by condemnation incidental damages are very apt to occur. [16] That is not to say that a cause of action for compensation for incidental damages has been created that has no basis or relatedness to the items made compensable by sec. 32.19, Stats. It means only that payment and time limits set forth in sec. 32.19 may encounter constitutional difficulties, as did the twelve-month rent loss limit in Luber. [17] This does not alter the mandated procedural steps set forth in sec. 32.20, for the making of any and all claims by condemnees. In the Luber Case the plaintiffs were offered $2,100 by the commission for their rent losses. They rejected this offer and went to court to challenge the twelve-month time limit as to allowable rent loss period. They succeeded, but their victory does not mean that a condemnee may challenge any item or limit in sec. 32.19 without initially bringing this claim or challenge to the commission or public body involved. Claimants are not to present a portion of their total claim to the commission, and the balance directly to the courts. That would defeat the evident legislative purpose and express legislative requirement that all claims by condemnees for compensation are to be presented to the commission involved for allowance or disallowance. This procedural requirement applies to all claims, including those the statute terms incidental. [18] In the case before us the requirement applies to National Hardware's claim for compensation for duplicate rent payments. The requirement was not met when National Hardware brought its claim directly to court. Finally, National Hardware submits that its claim for duplicate rent expenses ought not to have been rejected at the demurrer stage. There might be substance to this argument if we were dealing with the question of whether, under the facts of this case, the expenses involved in duplicate rent payments could be a proper item of compensation under the statute on a claim properly filed with the commission. However, we are not ruling either that the duplicate rent payments here made were or were not proper items of compensation due National Hardware. We are holding only that claims for compensation for rent loss, moving expenses or incidental expenses by condemnees must be filed with the commission or public body involved pursuant to sec. 32.20, Stats. 1965. We are further holding that even where a claim is asserted that is in excess of payment limits or beyond time limits as to losses sustained, such challenge must begin with a claim filed with the commission or public body involved in the taking. What we seek to outlaw is what was done herethe bringing of certain claims and portions of claims to the commission for allowance or disallowance, and the bringing of other claims or portions of claims directly to court without having presented them to the commission. All claims for compensation by condemnees must be filed with the commission or public body involved within the two-year time limit set by the statute. It is only after disallowance of such claims by such commission or public body that there is a right to take the claim or the challenge to commission disallowance to court. By the Court. Judgments and order affirmed.