AAA MILLION AUTO PARTS, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
ALICE AFFRON, 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.
In an eminent domain proceeding involving partial taking of leased property, the court affirmed denial of allocation to the tenant for remainder interest in the leasehold, finding that allowing such allocation would constitute impermissible double recovery where the tenant had already claimed damages for business injury.
A tenant cannot recover separately for the remainder interest in its leasehold when it has already presented and obtained a judgment for damages to its business in the same condemnation proceeding.
[1] A tenant in an eminent domain proceeding may not recover separately for the remainder interest in its leasehold when it has already obtained judgment for damages to its b…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn an eminent domain proceeding, a condemning authority partially took property to widen a thoroughfare, including buildings leased to appellant. Appe…
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 Partial Taking cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This appeal had its beginning in an eminent domain proceeding. The condemning authority made a partial taking of property in order to widen a thoroughfare. Buildings located thereon, leased to the appellant, were also partially taken. The parties here were co-defendants in the condemnation proceeding. Appellant, who conducted a business from the buildings, obtained a judgment for the resulting damages to his business. Appellee, as fee simple owner, settled her claim. A motion was presented to apportion the amount awarded, as damages in the settlement agreement, between the fee simple owner and the tenant. The trial court found that the tenant had elected to present its claim, for the remainder interest in the leasehold together with its claim for injury to its business, in the previous trial for business damages. On that basis, the trial court denied any allocation to the tenant with regard to his remainder interest in the lease. We agree.
A lessee is entitled to just compensation for the value of its remainder interest in its leasehold. Orange State Oil Company v. Jacksonville Expressway Authority, 110 So. 2d 687 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959). Under the circumstances of this case, allocation for the loss of the “bonus value” or remainder interest in the lease would have permitted double recovery which should not be allowed on principles of justice and fair play. Giessner v. Duval County, 203 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bolduc v. Glendale Fed. Bank, 631 So. 2d 1127 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)…rights in the amount awarded. National Advertising Co. v. State of Florida, Department of Transportation, 611 So. 2d 566, 569 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). This case did not follow the normal course of proceedings. In AAA Million Auto Parts Inc. v. Affron, 379 So. 2d 707 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), the third district held that a lessee who obtained a judgment for damages to its business could not thereafter recover damages for the value of its remainder interest in the lease from the owner’s settlement. In so holding, the c…
Authorities Cited
- Orange State OIL Co. v. Jacksonville Expressway Auth., 110 So. 2d 687 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959)
- Glessner v. Duval Cnty., 203 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967)