IN RE DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATION, STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, APPELLANT,
v.
ST. REGIS PAPER COMPANY, ET AL., APPELLEES
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.
The Florida Department of Transportation appealed a jury verdict in an eminent domain proceeding where landowners were awarded damages for total deprivation of access to their property after DOT's acquisition and highway reconstruction cut off their trail road access. The appellate court affirmed, finding no error in the trial court's directed verdict where DOT failed to present binding plans or authorized commitments showing how access would be maintained.
The trial court did not err in excluding the plans and testimony or in directing a verdict for the landowners. Absent binding plans or authority granted to a designated engineer or official to make commitments for DOT on construction details, the directed verdict for total loss of access was proper.
[1] In eminent domain proceedings, plans and specifications are inadmissible to demonstrate access if they do not clearly depict such access and there is no authority for a t…
[2] A directed verdict is proper in an eminent domain case when the evidence supports the assumption of the worst possible damage to the remaining property, such as total dep…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“absent a binding witness or specific plans, the trial judge did not err in denying admission of the disputed evidence and testimony and in granting the landowners' motion for directed verdict on the subject of access”
Establishes the legal standard for when exclusion of plans and engineering testimony is proper in eminent domain cases—there must be binding authority or specific plans showing access commitments.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDOT acquired 2.53 acres from Parcel 102 and 0.6 acres from Parcel 103 in Madison County, Florida for reconstruction and rerouting of U.S. 90 and const…
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 Eminent Domain Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw
LILES, WOODIE A. (Retired), Associate Judge.
The State Department of Transportation (DOT) appeals from a final judgment, after a jury trial, entered in an eminent domain proceeding. It assigns as error the trial court’s directing a verdict based upon the assumption that the worst possible damage would occur to the remaining property, i. e., a total deprivation of access, and the trial court's awarding of fees and costs.
This cause arose from an eminent domain proceeding where DOT acquired property for the reconstruction and rerouting of U.S. 90 (State Road 10) in Madison County, Florida, in conjunction with the construction of a new bridge across the Suwannee River. The project required the acquisition of 2.53 acres from Parcel 102 and .6 acres from Parcel 103. Prior to the acquisition, a trail road was used to provide access to both parcels. However, this trail road was cut by the State’s acquisition, thus raising the question of what access remained.
During the trial of its case, DOT attempted to offer into evidence certain plans and specifications to demonstrate that part of the construction plans for the highway included “standard turnouts” which would be built to allow access to Parcels 102 and 103. These “standard turnouts” were to be demonstrated by incorporation of a “Standard Detailed Turnout Index Number 515” and the Standard Specification Book. After extensive examination, the trial court initially admitted the entire set of plans and documents so DOT could show how access would be afforded to Parcel 102. When the same was attempted for Parcel 103, it became clear that the turnouts were not provided on the plans themselves. The trial judge then denied admission into evidence of DOT’s plans and specifications as they related to access, if any, on either or both of the parcels and further refused to admit engineering testimony regarding the manner of construction. He also directed a verdict for the landowners based upon the assumption that the worst possible damage would occur to the remaining property, i. e., total deprivation of access.
Our examination of the State’s plans and specifications confirms that there was nothing in them that would show any access to the landowners’ property. Further, there was no authority conferred upon any designated engineer or other testifying official to make commitments for DOT on the details of the proposed construction. Accordingly, absent a binding witness or specific plans, the trial judge did not err in denying admission of the disputed evidence and testimony and in granting the landowners’ motion for directed verdict on the subject of access. See Hodges v. Jacksonville Transportation Authority, 353 So. 2d 1211, 1214 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). See also Central & S. Fla. Con. District v. Wye River Farms, Inc., 297 So. 2d 323, 328-9 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974).
The judgment is therefore AFFIRMED.
ERVIN, J., and OWEN, WILLIAM C., Jr., (Retired) Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fla. Dep't OF Transp. v. Armadillo P'rs, Inc., 849 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 2003)…t DOT offered binding testimony from Douglas Green, a DOT engineer, that the department would permit the driveways as depicted in DOT’s cure plan should the property owner choose to implement the cure.7 Cf. Division of Admin. v. St. Regis Paper Co., 402 So. 2d 1207 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) (finding trial court did not err in denying admission of disputed evidence where there was no binding witness authorized to make commitments for DOT on the details of the proposed connections or specific plans). We find Mr. Green…
-
Trailer Ranch, Inc. v. City OF Pompano Beach, 500 So. 2d 503 (Fla. 1986)…that Houston Texas Gas and Oil Corporation v. Hoeffner, 132 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert. denied, 136 So. 2d 349 (Fla.1961), controls the issues sub judice. We disagree. Hoeffner and its progeny Department of Transportation v. St. Regis Paper Co., 402 So. 2d 1207 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), review denied, 412 So. 2d 464 (Fla.1982); and Smith v. City of Tallahassee, 191 So. 2d 446 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966), represent salient principles of law but are factually inapposite to the case before us. Simply stated, Hoeffner stan…
-
Division of Administration v. Consolidated-Tomoka Land Co., Inc., 448 So. 2d 12 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)…not believe the evidence was sufficiently undisputed as to access available from the south to authorize the trial court to take the issue of loss of access and its consequences away from the jury. Cf. In re Division of Admin. v. St. Regis Paper Co., 402 So. 2d 1207 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). Because we are vacating the final judgment we also reverse the award of attorney’s fees predicated thereon. ANSTEAD, C.J., HURLEY, J., and WES-SEL, JOHN D., Associate Judge, concur.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Cent. & S. Fla. Flood Control Dist. v. WYE River Farms, Inc., 297 So. 2d 323 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)
- Hodges v. Jacksonville Transp. Auth., 353 So. 2d 1211 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)