Eller Media Co. v. Miss. Transp. Comm'n
| Docket Number: | 2003-CA-01246-SCT Linked Case(s): 2003-CA-01246-SCT |
|
| Oral Argument: | 06-08-2004 | |
* This video is best viewed in the most current version of Google Chrome, Internet Explorer with Windows Media Player plug-in, or Safari (Mac Users). |
||
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 07-29-2004 Opinion Author: Dickinson, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Eminent domain - Compensation for structure - Section 43-37-11 - Valuation method Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller and Cobb, P.JJ., Easley, Carlson and Randolph, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz and Graves, JJ. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - EMINENT DOMAIN |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 05-21-2003 Appealed from: DeSoto County Special Court of Eminent Domain Judge: Mills E. Barbee Disposition: Appellant was granted compensation for loss of its leasehold interest in two parcels of real property. Case Number: CO-2000-0160 |
|
| Consolidated: 2003-CA-01248-SCT Eller Media Company v. Mississippi Transportation Commission; DeSoto Special Court of Eminent Domain; LC Case #: CO-2000-0155; Ruling Date: 05/21/2003; Ruling Judge: Mills E. Barbee | ||
| Note: | The argument is after the MSDOH v. Rush Care argument | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Eller Media Company |
MARK D. HERBERT
LISA ANDERSON REPPETO |
||
| Appellee: | Mississippi Transportation Commission | BARRY STUART ZIRULNIK HOLLAMAN MARTIN RANE |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Eminent domain - Compensation for structure - Section 43-37-11 - Valuation method |
| Summary of the Facts: | Eller Media Company was granted compensation for loss, through eminent domain, of its billboards and its leasehold interest in two parcels of real property in DeSoto County it leased from Entergy Service, Inc. and The Prudential Insurance Company. Eller appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Eller argues that compensation under section 43-37-11(1), (2) for the structure is the greater of the value which it contributes to the fair market value of the land or the fair market value of the structure itself. In effect, the fair market value of the sign is to be determined as if it were owned by the landowner rather than the tenant. Eller does not dispute the Transportation Commission’s taking of its sign structures or its leasehold interest but claims that the court’s partial summary judgment improperly restricted the allowed valuation method to the “cost” approach rather than allowing Eller to present additional evidence using the “market data/sales comparison” approach, and the “income” approach to valuation. Certainly, when appraising an owner’s interest in commercial property, all three methods of valuation could be relevant and useful and, at a minimum, should be considered. However, Eller is the owner of a sign structure which was placed on leased property. The market approach would be wholly useless, since the market value of the billboards could certainly not exceed the value of a new sign, less depreciation. Both leases contained termination provisions in the event of eminent domain; and therefore, the leases terminated by their own terms. Eller agreed it was not entitled to any of the condemnation award of the lessor and therefore, the only compensation to which Eller is entitled is the value of the sign structure; that is, the cost new, less depreciation. Because the parties had entered into and filed a stipulation that the cost new, less depreciation, for each billboard was $57,700.00, the judge was correct in granting the Commission’s motions for summary judgment. Eller was a month-to-month tenant under the Energy lease, and had a leasehold interest at the time the Commission filed its complaint, which continued until the expiration of the 30-day notice period. Eller had a leasehold interest under the Prudential Lease at the time the Commission filed the complaint on March 7, 2000. This leasehold interest continued until the physical taking which occurred on August 1, 2000. Because Eller remained in possession of the properties during the periods of time in question, Eller lost nothing and should not be compensated. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
