CAPITOL IMPROVE. AUTH. v. US Beef Corp., 97,546.
| Court | United States State Court of Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma |
| Citation | CAPITOL IMPROVE. AUTH. v. US Beef Corp., 52 P.3d 1052, 2002 OK CIV APP 81 (Okla. Civ. App. 2002) |
| Decision Date | 16 August 2002 |
| Docket Number | No. 97,546.,97,546. |
| Parties | STATE of Oklahoma, acting by and through the OKLAHOMA CAPITOL IMPROVEMENT AUTHORITY, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. UNITED STATES BEEF CORPORATION, an Oklahoma corporation, Defendant/Appellant, and Francis Investments, an Oklahoma general partnership; Forrest Freeman, County Treasurer of Oklahoma County; and, Board of County Commissioners of Oklahoma County, Defendants. |
James M. Waldo, Mock, Schwabe, Waldo, Elder, Reeves & Bryant, Oklahoma City, OK, for Plaintiff/Appellee.
William J. Doyle, III, Doyle & Salisbury, Tulsa, OK, for Defendant/Appellant.
Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 3. Opinion by CAROL M. HANSEN, Presiding Judge.
¶ 1 Defendant/Appellant, United States Beef Corporation (U.S.Beef), seeks review of the trial court's order granting summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff/Appellee, State of Oklahoma, acting by and through the Oklahoma Capitol Improvement Authority (State), in State's action for condemnation of property leased by U.S. Beef. We reverse and remand, holding U.S. Beef has standing to challenge the award of the commissioners.
¶ 2 U.S. Beef, an Arby's franchisee, has operated an Arby's restaurant since 1988 on property it leased in 1987 from Defendant, Francis Investments, at 3801 North Lincoln Boulevard in Oklahoma City. State filed its amended petition to condemn the subject property on April 18, 2000. It sought fee title to the property in order to construct and operate the Lincoln Renaissance Project pursuant to its authority under 73 O.S.Supp.1997 § 161(5). The commissioners filed their report assessing compensation of $400,000.00 for the condemnation. State deposited the assessed amount with the court clerk on July 28, 2000.
¶ 3 U.S. Beef demanded jury trial. State moved for summary judgment, arguing U.S. Beef lacked standing to pursue a jury trial because it had agreed in its lease with Francis Investments it would not be entitled to any part of any condemnation award. U.S. Beef objected. The trial court granted State's motion. U.S. Beef appeals without appellate briefs in conformance with the procedures for the appellate accelerated docket, Okla. Sup.Ct. R. 1.36, 12 O.S.Supp.1996, Ch. 15, App. 1.
The primary term of the lease was for five years, with two five year renewal options. U.S. Beef currently holds the lease under the second five year renewal term. According to John R. Davis, U.S. Beef's vice president, U.S. Beef remodeled the restaurant in 1998 and 1999 pursuant to an agreement with Francis Investments to extend the lease term beyond December 31, 2003.
¶ 5 In his affidavit, Davis stated neither U.S. Beef nor Francis Investments terminated the 1987 lease agreement. He said that on November 9, 2000, U.S. Beef entered a lease and remodel agreement for an alternate Arby's site at 3628 North Lincoln Boulevard as a substitute for the condemned premises. The restaurant moved to the new site in March 2001.
¶ 6 Private property may not be taken for public use without just compensation. Okla. Const. Art. 2, § 24. The word "property" as used in this section "include[s] every valuable interest...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
State ex rel. Department of Transportation v. Little
...See Rule 1.200, Rules of the Supreme Court, 12 O.S.2001, Ch. 15, App. 1. 41. Id. at ¶16, at 251. See also State v. U.S. Beef Corp., 2002 OK CIV APP 81, ¶7, 52 P.3d 1052, 1054 ("The elements of damage in a condemnation case include relocation costs."). 42. Graham v. City of Duncan, 1960 OK 1......
-
State ex rel. Department of Transp. v. Post
...OK 350, ¶ 0, 267 P. 852; Stinchcomb v. Oklahoma City, 1921 OK 154, ¶ 17, 198 P. 508; State ex rel. Oklahoma Capitol Improvement Auth. v. United States Beef Corp., 2002 OK CIV APP 81, ¶ 6, 52 P.3d 1052; No. 70-273, Opinions of the Oklahoma A.G. (Sept. 4, 1970). See also, Eberle v. State ex r......
-
Material Serv. Corp. v. Town of Fitzhugh
...right to share in the award, absent an agreement to the contrary with the lessor. State ex rel. Oklahoma Capitol Improvement Authority v. United States Beef Corp., 2002 OK CIV APP 81, ¶ 6, 52 P.3d 1052, 1054. However, “rights are vested when the present or prospective right to enjoyment has......