GIL ERIKSEN PROPERTIES, LLC, APPELLANT,
v.
POMPANO BEACH COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A property owner challenged an agreed order of taking in an eminent domain proceeding, raising fraud and subject matter jurisdiction arguments nearly a year after withdrawing compensation from the court registry. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's rejection of these arguments, finding them waived by the owner's delay and lack of timely objection.
The owner's arguments were without merit and waived. The fraud claim was waived by the owner's acceptance and withdrawal of the stipulated funds. The jurisdictional defect, if any, was also waived by the owner's failure to timely raise it, and in any event the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction over the condemnation suit.
[1] A property owner waives objections to an agreed order of taking in an eminent domain proceeding by withdrawing stipulated funds from the court registry.
[2] A property owner waives objections concerning the condemning authority's power to condemn property if not raised in the trial court.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“It is obvious, from the withdrawal of the funds from the registry of the court by the owner, that the owner was aware of the amounts. His objection a year later on the ground that his lawyer did not have authority was waived.”
Establishes that the owner's fraud claim regarding the stipulated amounts was waived by his acceptance and withdrawal of the funds.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Pompano Beach Community Redevelopment Agency filed a condemnation suit against Gil Eriksen Properties, LLC involving two properties. An agreed ord…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Delegation Of Power cases and more on FLexlaw
KLEIN, J.
The appellant property owner raises several issues in this eminent domain proceeding; however, the owner’s failure to timely raise the issues in the trial court precludes relief.
After the appellee agency filed this suit involving two properties of the owner, an agreed order of taking was entered, providing for stipulated values for both pieces. The agency deposited the correct amounts in the registry of the court, and the owner withdrew the portions to which he was entitled.
Slightly less than a year after entry of the agreed order of taking, the owner moved to vacate the agreed order under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b) arguing that there had been fraud, in that his lawyer did not have his authority to enter into the agreed order. The owner also argued that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the agency lacked the power to condemn property, as that power had not been delegated to the agency by the City of Pompano Beach.
The owner’s fraud argument, which concerns the amounts in the agreed order of taking, is without merit. It is obvious, from the withdrawal of the funds from the registry of the court by the owner, that the owner was aware of the amounts. His objection a year later on the ground that his lawyer did not have authority was waived.
As to the lack of subject matter jurisdiction, in Salfi v. Division of Administration, State, Department of Transportation, 312 So. 2d 781 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975), a condemning authority had filed a condemnation case with a defective resolution of necessity. We held that this was insufficient to confer jurisdiction on the court and that this could not be cured during the lawsuit by a new resolution. We recognized, however, that the trial court still had the power to adjudicate the subject matter of the action when the condemning authority filed a new action based on a proper resolution of necessity. See also Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Canal Auth. of State of Fla, 428 So. 2d 421 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982) (circuit court has subject matter jurisdiction over condemnation suits). The owner’s argument that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, which is the only basis on which the owner could obtain relief, is accordingly without merit. The alleged jurisdictional defect in this case was waived.
Affirmed.
STEVENSON, J., and KELLEY, GLENN D., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Noni Stinson v. State, 69 So. 3d 291 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)…lly caused the death of Solomon Stinson.” This constitutes fundamental, reversible error. Montgomery v. State, 34 Fla. L. Weekly D360, 70 So. 3d 603, 2009 WL 350624 (Fla. 1st DCA Feb. 12, 2009) (on motion for rehearing); see also Burroughs v. State, 997 So. 2d 522 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008); Davis v. State, 34 Fla. L. Weekly D131, — So. 3d -, 2009 WL 47384 (Fla. 1st DCA Jan. 9, 2009). Reversed and remanded for a new trial. LEWIS and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Fla. Power & Light Co. v. The Canal Auth. OF the State OF Fla., 423 So. 2d 421 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)
- Salfi v. Division OF Administration, 312 So. 2d 781 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)