Court Opinion

ID: 9860437
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 23:21:57.229127+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:23:46.255324
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE WRIGHT, specially concurring: In the context of this case as presented to the trial court, I agree the majority has properly answered the question certified for our review. Although I see some merit in the statutory construction advanced by Adams and adopted by the trial court, the certified question cannot be answered in a vacuum and must be considered in light of the facts of record and those recited to this court on appeal. The written Farmdale lease that defined Adams’ contractual relationship to the billboard site owned by Farmdale and later acquired by East Side provided that if the land was no longer available for billboard use and a suitable replacement site for the billboard could not be agreed upon by the parties, then Adams would remove the billboard at its expense. This lease had expired and ownership in the land had changed. Nonetheless, the lease demonstrates that the owner of the property did not acquire ownership of the billboard. While negotiating for a new, long-term written lease with the new owner, East Side, Adams tendered the annual payment of $3,200 to East Side on January 2, 2002, pursuant to informal understanding.1 In my view, and consistent with the supplemental facts provided by Adams, this annual payment would only create a leasehold interest for one year. It is significant that East Side and Adams did not finalize a long-term lease agreement before the condemnation proceedings began. Meanwhile, on October 9, 2002, title to the billboard site vested in IDOT. However, IDOT did not compel Adams to alter or remove the billboard during the year of the informal agreement with East Side subject to the $3,200 payment. The sign stood and presumably functioned as a billboard well past January 2003. Thereafter, IDOT contacted Adams in August 2003, requesting Adams to remove the billboard. However, Adams did not remove the sign from the condemned parcel in August as requested. Based on these facts provided to this court with the certified questions, IDOT did not acquire title to the billboard but acquired only title to the land. After acquiring title to the land, the State did not compel the sign to be altered or removed until the informal lease expired. The State has taken nothing from the billboard company. Adams left the sign behind. Thus, the unique facts recited by the parties in this appeal do not qualify as the separate taking necessary to advance the statutory construction for just compensation suggested by Adams. The question of just compensation for separate takings must be answered on another day. For these reasons, I specially concur in the majority’s decision, which answers both of the certified questions in this case in the affirmative.  Any subsequent $3,200 payment made by Adams to East Side after October of 2002 was ineffective. The title to the billboard site previously vested in IDOT in the fall of that year and a long-term lease did not exist that required such payment.