CAPO INVESTMENT GROUP CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, 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.
Capo Investment Group appealed a non-final quick-take order in an eminent domain proceeding, challenging the Department of Transportation's good faith estimate of property value. The court affirmed, holding that the DOT's estimate was made in good faith based on a valid appraisal, and that Capo would have a full opportunity to present its case on just compensation at trial.
The court held that any error in admitting cost-to-cure testimony without first proving severance damages was harmless, and that DOT's estimate was made in good faith based on a valid appraisal. The estimate does not establish the value of the property or constitute a finding of just compensation; a jury must determine value at trial.
[1] A trial court's admission of testimony regarding cost-to-cure damages without first adducing proof of severance damages may be harmless error if the condemning authority…
[2] A condemning authority is entitled to the lesser criterion of damage, whether it be severance damages or cost-to-cure damages.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“such estimate 'does not establish the value of the property rights [herein] and a court's determination that the estimate was made in good faith based upon a valid appraisal [as here] is not a finding of just compensation.'”
Establishes that the quick-take estimate is preliminary and not determinative of final compensation
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe State of Florida, Department of Transportation initiated a quick-take eminent domain proceeding to acquire property owned by Capo Investment Group…
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 Good Faith Estimate Of Value cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the landowner Capo Investment Group Corporation [Capo] from a non-final order of “quick-take” in an eminent domain proceeding. See Ch. 74, Fla. Stat. (1989). Capo does not challenge the public purpose or necessity of this taking pending a final hearing, but challenges only the good faith estimate of value for the property made by the condemning authority, State of Florida, Department of Transportation [DOT]. First, the claimed error, if any, in admitting testimony adduced by DOT at the “quick-take” hearing below on the cost-to-cure damages relating to one of the condemned parcels, without first adducing proof of the severance damages, compare Division of Admin., State of Fla., Dept. of Transp. v. Frenchman, Inc., 476 So. 2d 224 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985), rev. dismissed, 495 So. 2d 750 (Fla.1986), was entirely harmless. The DOT appraiser below simply assumed that the severance damages herein would greatly exceed the cost-to-cure damages (an assumption which Capo does not challenge) and proceeded to give an appraisal based on cost-to-cure damages. If that assumption was incorrect and the severance damages were actually less than the cost-to-cure damages, (a) the DOT estimate of value was inflated because DOT was entitled to the lesser criterion of damage, namely, the severance damages, see Frenchman, Inc., 476 So. 2d at 227, and (b) Capo is in no position to complain.
Second, no reversible error is presented in the trial court’s acceptance of the DOT’s estimate of value; such estimate, in our view, was made in good faith based on a valid appraisal. §§ 74.031, 74.-051(2), Fla.Stat. (1987). It should be noted, however, that such estimate “does not establish the value of the property rights [herein] and a court’s determination that the estimate was made in good faith based upon a valid appraisal [as here] is not a finding of just compensation. Rather, after the condemning authority [DOT] takes possession and title pursuant to a ‘quick taking’ proceeding (Chapter 74), if compensation or severance damages are in issue [as here], a jury is empaneled to make a determination of value.” Florida East Coast Ry. v. Broward County, 421 So. 2d 681, 684 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982) (citations omitted). At such trial, Capo will be entitled to present its case for severance damages and is not bound in any way by the DOT’s cost-to-cure estimate.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Shannon Props., Inc. v. Tampa-Hillsborough Cnty. Expressway Auth., 605 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)…lcon, Inc., 157 So. 2d 563 (Fla. 2d DCA1963). At this early “quick take” stage of the action the trial court’s determination that the estimate was made in good faith is not a determination of full compensation. Capo Inv. Group v. Dep’t of Transp., 578 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 3d DCA1991). Rather, the determination of full value is accomplished at a later stage of the proceedings. Our disposition of this appeal does nothing, of course, to preclude Shannon Properties from presenting its proofs and arguments concernin…
Authorities Cited
- Division of Administration v. Frenchman, Inc., 476 So. 2d 224 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)
- Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co. v. Broward Cnty., 421 So. 2d 681 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
- Frenchman, Inc. v. Division of Administration, 495 So. 2d 750 (Fla. 1986)