Opinion ID: 836243
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: First Claim for ReliefConversion

Text: Plaintiff alleged that the state had removed the first billboard without right or justification. In moving for summary judgment against plaintiff's conversion claim, the state asserted, in part: Plaintiff may argue that the cited statute is invalid for various constitutional reasons, but that is not the issue presented by the first claim for relief, which is pled as a claim for conversion, nothing more. To that assertion, plaintiff responded: Defendants allege that constitutional reasons are not presented in the First Claim for Relief,    but this is not true. [The second amended complaint] alleges that the State's actions were without right or justification. One reason that the State had no right or justification is that the statute relied upon is void. On appeal, the state continued to characterize plaintiff's conversion claim as one that sounds in tort. The state limited its briefing on that claim to whether the state had complied with the procedural requirements of the OMIA in removing the first billboard. When the issue of the theory of plaintiff's first claim for relief arose at oral argument at the Court of Appeals, the state asserted that that claim was not predicated on any constitutional arguments. The Court of Appeals agreed: [P]laintiff's constitutional challenges to the OMIA itself are confined to its second and third claims-that is, plaintiff does not contend that the [state] effected a conversion because the provisions of the OMIA on which it relied are unconstitutional. Outdoor Media Dimensions, 150 Or.App. at 112, 945 P.2d 614. In its petition for review and merits brief in this court, plaintiff continues to assert that its conversion claim rests in part on the argument that the state's action constituted a conversion because the state relied on an unconstitutional statute. For the reasons that follow, we disagree. First, there is nothing in the way that plaintiff pleaded its conversion claim that informed either the state or the trial court that plaintiff's theory of conversion rested on an assertion that the OMIA is unconstitutional. Second, even if plaintiff's theory of conversion in the trial court included a constitutional component, plaintiff failed to provide the Court of Appeals with any argument on that subject with respect to the assignments of error that pertained to plaintiff's first claim for relief. [5] Accordingly, the Court of Appeals did not err in determining that plaintiff had confined its constitutional challenges to the OMIA to plaintiff's second and third claims for relief. We proceed to consider whether there is any triable issue respecting whether the state complied with the OMIA in removing plaintiff's first billboard. 2. Whether the State Complied With the OMIA As pertinent to plaintiff's conversion claim, the OMIA provides:  Any outdoor advertising sign which does not have copy on the display surface for a period of six months shall be deemed to have been abandoned by the owner thereof and becomes a noncomplying sign subject to removal by the highway engineer under the procedure set forth in ORS 377.775. ORS 377.773 (emphasis added). ORS 377.775 provides, in part: (1) Any sign that fails to comply with ORS 377.700 to 377.840 hereby is declared to be a public and private nuisance. In addition to the penalties provided by ORS 377.992 for violation thereof, such a sign may be removed by the highway engineer or the duly authorized representative of the engineer as provided by this section. The engineer may enter upon private property and remove the sign without incurring any liability therefor.      (3)(a) If a noncomplying sign bears the name and address of its owner or if the owner of the sign is readily identified and located, the engineer shall notify the owner that the sign is in violation of ORS 377.700 to 377.840 and that the owner has 30 days from the date of the notice within which to make the sign comply, to remove the sign or to request a hearing before the engineer within the time specified in the notice. (b) If the sign is not made to comply or is not removed and if the owner does not request a hearing within the time required, or if the owner after a hearing fails to comply with the final order in the proceedings, the highway engineer or the duly authorized representatives of the engineer may remove and destroy or otherwise dispose of the sign.      (5) The owner is liable for, and the highway engineer shall collect, the costs of removing a sign. Costs shall be determined by the highway engineer on the basis of actual costs of removal or on a square-foot flat fee basis. ORS 377.710(31) defines the term sign as any sign, display, message, emblem, device, figure, painting, drawing, placard, poster, billboard or other thing that is designed, used or intended for advertising purposes or to inform or attract the attention of the public, and the term includes the sign structure, display surface and all other component parts of a sign[.] Sign structure means the supports, uprights, braces, framework and display surfaces of a sign. ORS 377.710(35). As noted, plaintiff claims that a jury should be permitted to decide whether the state committed conversion by failing to comply with the requirements of the OMIA in removing the first billboard. First, plaintiff argues that it made the first billboard comply by removing all copy from the billboard, leaving the billboard blank. Second, even if the blank billboard remained a nonconforming sign under the OMIA, plaintiff argues that ORS 377.773 provides that a billboard must be blank for at least six months before the state may remove it. The first billboard was blank for only four or five months. Third, with respect to the 30-day period set out in ORS 377.775(3)(a), plaintiff argues that, as a grammatical matter, that period refers only to the time within which a hearing must be requested and does not limit the time within which a sign must be brought into compliance. Therefore, according to plaintiff, the fact that the first billboard might have been nonconforming for more than 30 days after the notice does not insulate the state from liability. Finally, plaintiff argues that the state is estopped from arguing that plaintiff failed to comply with the statute, because one of its employees told plaintiff that the state would not remove the first billboard if plaintiff removed the copy from it. Respecting plaintiff's first argument, the state responds that removing the advertisement or other message from an otherwise noncompliant billboard does not bring the billboard into compliance with the OMIA: If one of the options [under ORS 377.775(3)(b)] is to remove the sign (the message and the structure), it would make little sense to conclude that the legislature also intended to permit a person simply to remove the message. Respecting plaintiff's second argument, the state contends that ORS 377.773 does not apply to signs that already violate the OMIA; rather, that statute applies only to situations in which the blank sign otherwise complies with the OMIA. Plaintiff's billboard, as plaintiff implicitly acknowledges, was erected without a permit and was a nonconforming sign under the OMIA from the outset. The state rejects plaintiff's argument that the 30-day period set out in ORS 377.775(3)(a) applies only to the time for requesting a hearing. It contends that the statute makes clear that the legislature understood that the 30-day period limited the time in which any violation could be cured. Finally, respecting plaintiff's estoppel argument, the state contends that plaintiff failed to advance an estoppel theory on appeal. Alternatively, the state argues that a state employee has no authority to depart from the terms of the statute. The Court of Appeals rejected each of plaintiff's arguments regarding the conversion claim. The court held that the 30-day period applies to bringing a sign into compliance and that removing the advertisement or other message from a sign does not render the billboard compliant with the OMIA: Compliance means obtaining a permit, ORS 377.725, and removal of the `sign' means removal of the `structure.' See ORS 377.710[ (31) ] and [ (35) ] (`sign' includes `the sign structure,' which means `the supports, uprights, braces, framework and display surfaces of a sign'). Plaintiff took none of these actions within the required time period, and the [state] therefore had authority to remove the entire billboard structure, whether or not plaintiff had removed the display advertising. Outdoor Media Dimensions, 150 Or.App. at 112, 945 P.2d 614 (footnotes omitted). The Court of Appeals further noted: [O]ne of the policies underlying the OMIA is to `preserve the natural beauty and aesthetic features of [the state's] highways and adjacent areas.' ORS 377.705. A blank billboard is just as contrary to that purpose as is a billboard with advertising. Id. at 112 n. 6, 945 P.2d 614 (second brackets in original). The Court of Appeals did not consider plaintiff's estoppel theory: Although plaintiff's president alleged in an affidavit that a [state] employee told plaintiff that if it took down the radio ad the billboard structure would not be removed, plaintiff does not argue on appeal that its reliance on that advice somehow deprived the [state] of authority to remove the structure. Plaintiff only argues that its removal of the advertising brought the structure into compliance with the OMIA. Id. at 112 n. 7, 945 P.2d 614. We begin by addressing plaintiff's first two statutory arguments together, as they are interrelated. Those arguments raise issues of statutory construction, to which we apply the methodology set out in PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 317 Or. 606, 610-12, 859 P.2d 1143 (1993). Under that methodology, we first examine the text and context of the statutory provisions at issue. Id. at 610-11, 859 P.2d 1143. If legislative intent is clear based upon an examination of text and context, then we proceed no further. Id. at 611, 859 P.2d 1143. We begin with two observations. First, at least until plaintiff removed the advertisement and religious message, the first billboard was an outdoor advertising sign under the OMIA. ORS 377.710(24). Second, during that period, the billboard also was a nonconforming sign under the OMIA, because plaintiff had no permit for it. ORS 377.715; ORS 377.725. With those observations in mind, it becomes evident that plaintiff frames its first questionwhether a blank billboard complies with the OMIAtoo broadly. The facts of this case present the question whether a billboard that was a nonconforming outdoor advertising sign under the OMIA becomes a complying sign when the owner of the billboard removes the advertising or other message. We begin and ultimately end our analysis with ORS 377.773. Again, that statute provides that  [a]ny outdoor advertising sign which does not have copy on the display surface for a period of six months shall be deemed to have been abandoned by the owner thereof and becomes a noncomplying sign subject to removal   . (Emphasis added.) Any is defined, in part, as one indifferently out of more than two: one or some indiscriminately of whatever kind. Webster's Third New Int'l Dictionary, 97 (unabridged ed 1993); see also Fleming v. United Services Automobile Assn., 329 Or. 449, 456, 988 P.2d 378 (1999) (in context, any synonymous with every), modified on recons., 330 Or. 62, 996 P.2d 501 (2000). ORS 377.773, therefore, applies to outdoor advertising signs of all species, including those that do not comply with the OMIA. Plaintiff's argument to the contrary notwithstanding, ORS 377.773 does not provide that the owner of a noncomplying sign may bring that sign into compliance by removing the advertisements or other messages from it. That statute speaks to only one way, abandonment, out of a number of possible ways, in which an outdoor advertising sign might fail to comply with the OMIA. Moreover, ORS 377.773 does not purport, either expressly or impliedly, to affect other compliance provisions of the OMIA. Thus, if an outdoor advertising sign complied with the OMIA before abandonment, then ORS 377.773 would render that sign noncompliant because of the abandonment. If, however, an outdoor advertising sign already had failed to comply with the OMIA and subsequently was abandoned, then ORS 377.773 would provide an additional basis for deeming the sign noncompliant. In short, there is nothing in ORS 377.773 that supports plaintiff's argument. To the contrary, the six-month limit for which an outdoor advertising sign lawfully may remain blank under ORS 377.773 suggests the opposite conclusion. That is, at least with respect to otherwise noncompliant outdoor advertising signs, removing all advertisements or messages from the sign does not bring the sign into compliance with the OMIA, at least in any permanent sense. Even under the interpretation of ORS 377.773 that plaintiff advocates, the best for which the owner of a noncomplying sign could hope by removing the message would be a six-month grace period. If we were to adopt that constructionand, as noted above, we do notthen the result would not in any sense be the broader, permanent notion of compliance that plaintiff asserts that it achieved by removing the advertisement and religious message from its first billboard. Nothing in the context of ORS 377.773 changes the conclusion that the text of the statute supports. ORS 377.775 sets out the procedural requirements for removing signs that do not comply with the OMIA. That statute provides the owner of an assertedly noncomplying sign with three options: (1) make the sign comply; (2) remove the sign; or (3) request an administrative hearing. ORS 377.775(3)(a). Although the parties and the Court of Appeals each relied to some extent on ORS 377.775 in their respective analyses, we conclude that that statute provides no clear insight as to whether the owner of a nonconforming sign may make the sign comply with the OMIA by removing the advertisement or other message. In that regard, the only option under ORS 377.775(3)(a) and (b) that pertains to the question before us is the option to make the sign comply. ORS 377.775(3)(a). As noted above, the Court of Appeals held that [c]ompliance means obtaining a permit   . Outdoor Media Dimensions, 150 Or.App. at 112, 945 P.2d 614. We disagree. The OMIA is not drawn that narrowly. For example, in this case, plaintiff also could have brought the first billboard into compliance by, among other things, replacing the radio advertisement with a sign that was not an outdoor advertising sign or one that specifically is exempt from the OMIA permitting requirement. See ORS 377.735 (listing certain exempt signs). Thus, the fact that the statute permits the owner to make the sign comply merely raises, but does not answer, the question of what compliance means. In the context of nonconforming outdoor advertising signs, ORS 377.773 provides the answer to that question and demonstrates, we think conclusively, that rendering the sign blank does not constitute compliance. Having answered plaintiff's first question in the negative, its second question remains: Even if the first billboard was a nonconforming sign, was the state required to wait six months before removing it? Our analysis above answers that question. The six-month abandonment provision does not affect, expressly or impliedly, the other compliance provisions of the OMIA. Accordingly, if a blank outdoor advertising sign otherwise complies with the OMIA, then the state may not remove the sign until it has been blank for at least six months. Applying the foregoing analysis to the facts of this case, plaintiff's act of removing the advertisement and religious message from the first billboard did not make that billboard a complying sign under the OMIA. Because the first billboard did not comply with the OMIA for reasons separate from whether the billboard had been abandoned, that is, plaintiff had no permit for it, the state was not required to wait for the sign to be blank for six months before removing it. Plaintiff next argues that, even if making the billboard blank did not render it compliant, and even if the state did not have to wait six months under ORS 377.773 before removing the billboard, the state nevertheless acted prematurely. Plaintiff argues that the 30-day period set out in ORS 377.775(3)(a) applies only to the time within which the owner of a billboard must request a hearing following receipt of a notice from the state that the billboard violates the OMIA. That period, plaintiff continues, does not limit the time within which the owner either may remove the billboard or bring it into compliance. Such is the case, plaintiff argues, because paragraph (3)(b) of the statute authorizes the state to remove a sign only [i]f the sign is not made to comply or is not removed and if the owner does not request a hearing within the time required   . (Emphasis added.) In plaintiff's words: The time requirement does not refer to `comply' since `comply' and `removed' are separated by `or,' and both of those words are separated from the hearing request provision with `and.' Plaintiff's argument is not well taken. Plaintiff's construction ignores and would nullify the wording in paragraph (3)(a) of ORS 377.775 that immediately precedes the statutory text on which plaintiff relies. See State v. K.P., 324 Or. 1, 8, 921 P.2d 380 (1996) (whenever possible, court will construe statute to give effect to all wording). Paragraph (3)(a) provides, in part, that the owner has 30 days from the date of the notice within which to make the sign comply, to remove the sign or to request a hearing before the engineer within the time specified in the notice. [6] Paragraph (3)(a) establishes a 30 day period within which an owner at least either must remove the sign or make it comply with the OMIA. [7] We apply the same analysis to the prepositional phrase in subsection (3)(b)within the time required. Plaintiff correctly argues that that phrase applies only to the wording if the owner does not request a hearing. The problem for plaintiff, however, is that its argument stops there. In so limiting its argument, plaintiff appears to assume that no other statutory provision bears upon the question that plaintiff presents. As noted, however, plaintiff's selective presentation ignores the import of the text that immediately precedes subsection (3)(b), which gives sign owners 30 days to remove the sign or make it comply with the OMIA. That provision answers the question presented directly and, in our view, removes any ambiguity that might arise from examining subsection (3)(b) in isolation. Finally, plaintiff does not identify, and we have not discerned, any other context respecting those statutory provisions that would alter our reading of the plain text of the statute. Accordingly, we conclude that the intent of the legislature is clear. At least in the absence of a request for a hearing, the OMIA limits sign owners to 30 days within which to correct or remove the assertedly noncompliant sign before the state may remove it. Plaintiff next argues that, even if the OMIA authorized the state to remove the first billboard, the state is estopped from relying on the OMIA as a defense against plaintiff's conversion claim. That is so, plaintiff contends, because a state employee told plaintiff that, if plaintiff removed all speech from the first billboard, then the state would not remove the billboard. Plaintiff asserts that it relied upon that statement and removed all speech from the billboard. Contrary to its promise to plaintiff, however, the state still removed the billboard. As noted, the Court of Appeals concluded that plaintiff had not advanced on appeal the argument that plaintiff's reliance on the employee's statement deprived the state of the authority to remove the first billboard as a noncomplying sign under the OMIA. Outdoor Media Dimensions, 150 Or.App. at 112 n. 7, 945 P.2d 614. Instead, the Court of Appeals concluded that plaintiff had argued only that its removal of the advertising and religious message brought the billboard into compliance with the OMIA and, accordingly, the court did not entertain plaintiff's argument. Id. On review, the state contends that the Court of Appeals correctly construed the nature of plaintiff's estoppel argument on appeal. We agree. In its appellant's brief in the Court of Appeals, plaintiff did raise impliedly, as a question in the introductory portion of its brief, the estoppel argument that it seeks to maintain on review. In its arguments in support of plaintiff's assignments of error in that brief, however, plaintiff asserted only that, [a]fter negotiations with the individual defendants   , [p]laintiff made the sign comply by removing all speech. As the Court of Appeals concluded, that is not the same argument. Moreover, even were we to conclude that the placement of the introductory question is not fatal in and of itself, plaintiff failed to develop its argument, or cite to any pertinent authority, in the body of the brief. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals did not err in concluding that plaintiff had failed to argue on appeal that the state's alleged representation deprived the state of the authority to remove the first billboard. See 331 Or. at 643 n. 5, 20 P.3d at 187 n. 5) (noting that plaintiff's failure to present argument regarding constitutional basis for conversion claim constituted failure to make that argument on appeal). In sum, we conclude that the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to the state on plaintiff's first claim for relief. [8]