SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, APPELLANT,
v.
STEADMAN STAHL, P.A. PENSION FUND, 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.
Landowners adjacent to a water conservation area brought suit against the South Florida Water Management District alleging that the District's operations flooded their property. The trial court found both trespass and inverse condemnation; the appellate court affirmed the inverse condemnation judgment but reversed the trespass judgment.
The court affirmed that the District's actions constituted an inverse condemnation and a taking of the plaintiffs' property, entitling them to compensation on that count. However, the court reversed the trespass judgment because there was no evidence of a separate temporary trespass preceding the permanent taking.
[1] A governmental entity's continuous flooding of private land due to changes in water management policies can constitute a taking for inverse condemnation purposes.
[2] A trespass claim is not supported when flooding of private property is permanent and results in an inverse condemnation, as there is no evidence of a separate tort preced…
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“Our review of the record indicates that there is substantial competent evidence to support the trial court's ruling concerning the count for inverse condemnation.”
Establishes that the appellate court found sufficient evidence to affirm the inverse condemnation judgment
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLandowners in Broward County owned property adjacent to a water conservation area operated by the South Florida Water Management District. The Distric…
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 Taking Of Property cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The plaintiffs/appellees are land owners in Broward County whose lands are adjacent to a water conservation area operated by the South Florida Water Management District. The landowners brought an action against the Water Management Dis trict and alleged that the Water Management District’s operations had caused their lands to be flooded. The landowners sought compensation for trespass and inverse condemnation. The trial court agreed with the landowners and ruled that the Water Management District’s maintenance of its structures caused the plaintiffs’ lands to be continually flooded. The court found that the Water Management District had caused both a trespass on the landowners’ property and a taking of their property by inverse condemnation. The Water Management District appeals. We affirm the judgment of liability on the count for inverse condemnation but reverse the judgment of liability for trespass.
Our review of the record indicates that there is substantial competent evidence to support the trial court’s ruling concerning the count for inverse condemnation. There was competent evidence that even after the initial construction of the water management project the land in question had beneficial uses. The evidence also supports the conclusion that after a change in water management policies during 1982 the plaintiffs’ lands were continually flooded, thus constituting a “taking”. Since no reversible error has been shown, we affirm on this point.
As to the count for trespass we reverse. The record does not support the conclusion that there was a temporary trespass which preceded a permanent taking. The evidence indicates that the plaintiff’s property was flooded in 1982 and has remained in that condition. Since there was no evidence of a separate tort then, there can be no recovery for the count for trespass. See generally, County of Volusia v. W.R. Pickens, 439 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983) (damages for loss of rental income are not included after the date of an inverse condemnation, since from that time onward the property belongs, albeit wrongfully, to the public entity.)1
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED for further consistent proceedings.
DOWNEY, ANSTEAD and WALDEN, JJ., concur. . We note that our decision on this point moots the other issues raised by the District, that is, whether the District had received adequate notice of the tort action, whether or not the District enjoyed sovereign immunity for the tort count, and whether a $200,000 statutory limitation of liability was applicable.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
VLX Props., Inc. v. S. States Utils., Inc., 701 So. 2d 391 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)…trary to the trial court’s finding, possibly stated a cognizable claim for inverse condemnation against SSU. Martin v. City of Monticello, 632 So. 2d 236 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); South Florida Water Management Dist. v. Steadman Stahl, P.A. Pension Fund, 558 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990), rev. denied, 574 So. 2d 143 (Fla.1990); Hillsbor-ough County v. Gutierrez, 433 So. 2d 1337 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Thompson v. Nassau County, 343 So. 2d 965 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); Elliott v. Hernando County, 281 So. 2d 395 (Fla. 2d DC…
-
S. Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist. v. Basore OF Fla., Inc., 723 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…asion of the land, amounting to an appropriation of and not merely an injury, to the property.” See, e.g., Diamond K Corp. v. Leon County, 677 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); South Florida Water Management Dist. v. Steadman Stahl, P.A., Pension Fund, 558 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 574 So. 2d 143 (Fla.1990); Bensch v. Metro. Dade County, 541 So. 2d 1329, 1330 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). The parties in this case agreed in the trial court that this line of cases should not be applied. Nevertheless, it appea…
Authorities Cited
- Sound Builders OF ST. Petersburg, Inc. v. Patrick and Rosemary Hanlon, 439 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)
- Cnty. OF Volusia v. W.R. Pickens & Cont'l Ins. Co., 439 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)