BROWARD COUNTY, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
G. WARREN STEELE, DANA A. STEELE, JR., FREDERIC LINCOLN STEELE, JR., ELIZABETH A. STEELE, ESTHER STEELE FLOOD, UNKNOWN HEIRS, BENEFICIARIES, DEVISEES, LEGATEES, SPOUSES, AND CREDITORS OF ALICE H. STEELE, DECEASED, W. TINSLEY ELLIS, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEE, CARMELLA F. DORRY, R.S.L. REALTY, INC., DOROTHY R. BECHTEL, AND UNKNOWN HEIRS, BENEFICIARIES, DEVISEES, LEGATEES, SPOUSES, AND CREDITORS OF M.A. BECHTEL A/K/A MARY A. BECHTEL, DECEASED, 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.
Broward County sought to condemn property for a county park or nature center using quick-take provisions. The trial court granted fee simple title but imposed a reversion condition if the property ceased being used for its stated purpose or if the State failed to lease adjacent lands. The appellate court reversed, holding that once reasonable necessity for condemnation is shown, the condemning authority's discretion regarding the extent of the estate interest should not be disturbed absent bad faith or abuse of discretion.
Once a trial court finds reasonable necessity for a taking, the condemning authority's discretion regarding the extent of the estate interest needed should not be disturbed absent a showing of bad faith, fraud, or gross abuse of discretion. The trial court erred in imposing conditions on the fee simple title grant, and Broward County should have been granted title in fee simple absolute.
[1] A condemning authority has the burden of proving the extent of the estate interest needed for a project.
[2] A condemning authority need only offer some evidence showing reasonable necessity for a taking.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Broward County, however, also had the burden of proving the extent of the estate interest needed for the project.”
Establishes that while the county must prove necessity for taking, it must also prove what type of interest (fee simple vs. lesser estate) is needed.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBroward County filed condemnation proceedings under Chapter 74, Florida Statutes to acquire property for a county park or nature center. The trial cou…
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 Necessity For Taking cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Broward County filed condemnation proceedings utilizing the “quick take” provisions of Chapter 74, Florida Statutes. In granting the order of taking, the trial court determined that acquisition of title in fee simple absolute was not necessary to meet the particular public need described in the petition. Consequently, the court imposed the following condition:
That Petitioner, BROWARD COUNTY shall acquire the lands taken in fee simple, but if the lands taken shall cease to be used for a County park or nature center, or if the State does not lease the adjacent contiguous lands to the Petitioner for said purposes, or the lease terminates without extension or renegotiation thereof, then, in any of these events, the lands taken shall automatically revert and revest in Defendants, or their legal successors in interest, in fee simple.
Broward County maintains that the terms of this order were based upon the court’s concern for uncertainties in the project, and argues that these uncertainties do not justify the conditional nature of the grant.
The trial court in awarding Broward County fee simple title to the properties found a reasonable necessity for the taking. Broward County, however, also had the burden of proving the extent of the estate interest needed for the project. See Canal Authority v. Miller, 243 So. 2d 131 (Fla.1970); State ex rel. Ervin v. Jacksonville Expressway Authority, 139 So. 2d 135, 138 (Fla.1962); Miller v. Florida Inland Navigational District, 130 So. 2d 615 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961).
In Central & South Florida Flood Control District v. Wye River Farms, Inc., 297 So. 2d 323, 326 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974), this court upheld condemnation, even though uncertainties remained at the time of taking, stating:
It has been well established that it is not necessary that a condemnor ... have funds on hand, plans and specifications prepared and all other preparations necessary for immediate construction before it can determine the necessity for taking private property for a public use.
Id. See also City of Jacksonville v. Griffin, 346 So. 2d 988 (Fla.1977); City of Miami Beach v. Broida, 362 So. 2d 19 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 372 So. 2d 466 (Fla.1979); City of St. Petersburg v. Vinoy Park Hotel Co., 352 So. 2d 149 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); Wright v. Dade County, 216 So. 2d 494 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968), cert. denied, 225 So. 2d 527 (Fla.1969), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 1008, 90 S.Ct. 565, 24 L.Ed.2d 500 (1970).
A condemning authority need only offer some evidence showing reason able necessity for taking. Thereafter, a condemning authority’s discretion should not be disturbed absent a showing of bad faith or abuse of discretion. Canal Authority v. Miller, 243 So. 2d 131, 134 (Fla.1970); City of Miami Beach v. Broida, 362 So. 2d 19, 20 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); City of St. Petersburg v. Vinoy Park Hotel Co., 352 So. 2d 149, 151-152 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); Miller v. Florida Inland Navigational District, 130 So. 2d 615, 623 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961). Once reasonable necessity is shown, the landowner must show fraud, bad faith, or a gross abuse of discretion in order to defeat it. Canal Authority v. Miller; Canal Authority v. Litzel, 243 So. 2d 135, 137-138 (Fla.1970). The trial court made no such finding, nor does appellee argue that there was bad faith or fraud.
We conclude that the discretion of the county should not have been disturbed and that title in fee simple absolute should have been granted. Therefore the order of taking is reversed. We remand for further proceedings implementing this opinion.
ANSTEAD, WALDEN and STONE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Young, 539 So. 2d 596 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)…., 420 So. 2d 929 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). See also, Moisan v. Frank K. Kriz, Jr., M.D., P.A., 531 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). A condemning authority need only offer some evidence showing a “reasonable” necessity for taking. Broward County v. Steele, 537 So. 2d 650 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). See also, Canal Auth. v. Miller, 243 So. 2d 131 (Fla.1970); City of St. Petersburg v. Vinoy Park Hotel Co., 352 So. 2d 149 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977) (condemning authority need not show that it “needed” the subject parcel but must only…
-
City OF Cocoa v. Holland Props., Inc., 625 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)…Cocoa that the correct standard was presented to the trial court before its decision was made or became final. The quantum of proof required by a condemning authority to establish a necessity for a taking was summarized in Broward County v. Steele, 537 So. 2d 650 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989): A condemning authority need only offer some evidence showing reasonable necessity for taking. Thereafter a condemning authority’s discretion should not be disturbed absent a showing of bad faith or an abuse of discretion.... On…
Authorities Cited (13 total)
- The Canal Auth. of the State of Fla. v. Miller, 243 So. 2d 131 (Fla. 1970)
- City OF Jacksonville v. Griffin, 346 So. 2d 988 (Fla. 1977)
- Cent. & S. Fla. Flood Control Dist. v. WYE River Farms, Inc., 297 So. 2d 323 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)
- The Canal Auth. of the State of Fla. v. Litzel, 243 So. 2d 135 (Fla. 1970)
- Smith v. United States, 396 U.S. 1008 (U.S. 1970)
- Taylor v. Dealers Transp. Co., 396 U.S. 1008 (U.S. 1970)
- State ex rel. Richard W. Ervin v. Jacksonville Expressway Auth., 139 So. 2d 135 (Fla. 1962)
- Williams v. Am. Crafts, Inc., 130 So. 2d 615 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)
- City OF ST. Petersburg v. Vinoy Park Hotel Co., 352 So. 2d 149 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)
- Wright v. Dade Cnty., 216 So. 2d 494 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)