BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
CANAVERAL PROPERTIES, INC., ET AL., APPELLEES

Fla. 5th DCA | 1995-07-07
No. 94-1109
DAUKSCH, J., concurs., GRIFFIN, J., dissents, without opinion.
658 So. 2d 590 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (1995) Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases

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.

Synopsis

Brevard County appeals a jury verdict awarding severance damages to property owners in an eminent domain case involving the condemnation of land for highway extension. The appellate court reverses, holding that the evidence was insufficient to establish that 660 acres subdivided into 499 lots owned by four separate corporations constituted a single "parent parcel" entitled to severance damages.


Holding

The court held that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that the corporations owned a single parent parcel. The court reversed because the evidence failed to establish the requisite unity of ownership, use, and contiguity necessary to treat the 499 separately owned and operated lots as one unit.


Headnotes

[1] Severance damages in an eminent domain proceeding require the condemnees to prove unity of use, ownership, and contiguity of parcels.

[2] A presumption of separateness applies to vacant platted urban lots in the absence of contrary evidence.

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

Key Quotes

“if the land is actually occupied or in use, the unity of the use is the chief criterion in determining whether contiguous parcels are one unit or separate and independent. When property is, in fact, unoccupied, the question of whether separate lots are one unit is more difficult. Given the complexity and formalities of modern-day city planning, we believe that a presumption of separateness as to vacant platted urban lots is reasonable and would facilitate the determination of the separateness issue in the absence of contrary evidence.”

Establishes the test for determining whether separate parcels constitute a parent parcel, emphasizing unity of use and presumption of separateness for vacant lots

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Brevard County condemned approximately 660 acres of real property owned by four separate corporations (Canaveral Properties, Inc., Jacob Aaron Corpora…

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.


Opinion of the Court
COBB, Judge.

COBB, Judge.

Brevard County [the “County”] appeals a final judgment following jury trial awarding appellees Canaveral Properties, Inc., Jacob Aaron Corporation, Security Escrow Corporation and the B.D.M. Financial Corporation [“Corporations”], severance damages in an eminent domain proceeding ensuing from the County’s condemnation of certain real property in order to extend Grissom Parkway. We reverse because we cannot agree with the trial court that there was sufficient evidence to support a jury finding that the corporations herein are the owners of a “parent parcel,” as that term is defined in Department of Transportation, Division of Administration v. Jirik, 498 So. 2d 1253 (Fla. 1986).

The Jirik case concerned three parcels which were physically contiguous and all owned by one person, Clara E. Jirik. The sole issue in that ease was unity of use. The test enunciated in Jirik in regard to that factor was:

[I]f the land is actually occupied or in use, the unity of the use is the chief criterion in determining whether contiguous parcels are one unit or separate and independent. When property is, in fact, unoccupied, the question of whether separate lots are one unit is more difficult. Given the complexity and formalities of modern-day city planning, we believe that a presumption of separateness as to vacant platted urban lots is reasonable and would facilitate the determination of the separateness issue in the absence of contrary evidence.

498 So. 2d at 1256-1257.

In the instant case, the claim is that some 660 acres subdivided into 499 lots, creating a checkerboard configuration, with the lots owned by four separate corporations and held for sale as separate units, constitute a “parent parcel” so as to allow severance damages in an eminent domain proceeding. No cited case has ever extended the concept of a “parent parcel” to this magnitude. The 499 lots are physically separated by numerous easements and out parcels. Moreover, no evidence was adduced at trial of any joint venture, partnership agreement or other document creating any legal relationship between the corporations. Historically, the corporations have defined and treated these subdivision lots as individual parcels, and the filing of a condemnation action does not alter the fact that there is diversity of ownership, diversity of usage and an absence of contiguity.

We agree with the argument advanced by the County:

In this case, there is no unity of ownership between four separate and distinct corporations. The corporations were created for tax reasons and to limit liability. The Appellees themselves recognize different corporate interests by transferring title between the various corporations. Appel-lees should not be allowed to use the legal advantages of limited liability and tax advantages of the corporate form when it is convenient and ignore the corporate form when ignoring the corporation is more profitable.

The burden of proof at trial was on the corporations, as the condemnees, to establish severance damages. City of Ft. Lauderdale v. Casino Realty, Inc., 313 So. 2d 649 (Fla.1975). That required them to show that, despite the physical separation and disparate ownership of these 499 lots, there was a proximity and an integration of use so substantial that the lots were in effect one lot. County of Volusia v. Niles, 445 So. 2d 1043, 1047 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Di Virgilio v. State Road Department, 205 So. 2d 317 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967), cert. discharged by, 211 So. 2d 556 (Fla.1968). The condemnees failed to meet that burden in this ease.

A verdict should have been directed in the County’s favor on the “parent parcel” issue and judgment entered for the corporations in the amount of $226,200.00 since no rebuttal evidence of value on smaller parent tracts was presented.

REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION.

DAUKSCH, J., concurs.

GRIFFIN, J., dissents, without opinion.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Brevard Cnty. v. Canaveral Props., Inc., 696 So. 2d 1244 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)
    …e taxpayers of this state ultimately have to pay any excessive awards made, with no corresponding benefit to the public’s interest or welfare. REVERSED and REMANDED. GOSHORN and ANTOON, JJ., concur. . Brevard County v. Canaveral Properties, Inc., 658 So. 2d 590 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995), rev. denied, 670 So. 2d 937 (Fla.1996). . Brevard County v. Canaveral Properties, Inc., 689 So. 2d 1309 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997).…
  • Brevard Cnty. v. Canaveral Props., Inc., 689 So. 2d 1309 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)
    …ted upon the landowners’ recovery in the trial court of $765,000, including severance damages. However, on appeal the severance damages were stricken and the recovery was ordered reduced to $226,200. See Brevard County v. Canaveral Properties, Inc., 658 So. 2d 590 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995), rev. denied, 670 So. 2d 937 (Fla.1996). The trial court thereafter was asked to reconsider the award of attorney’s fees. The court merely struck the benefit and reconfirmed the remainder of the attorney’s fee award, resulting in…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw