TAMPA-HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY EXPRESSWAY AUTHORITY FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, APPELLANT,
v.
MARCELINO CASIANO-TORRES, NAOMI CASIANO, AND DANIEL CASIANO, 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.
In an eminent domain case, the State of Florida appealed a jury verdict awarding business and severance damages to the property owners. The appellate court affirmed the award, holding that the trial court properly submitted to the jury the factual question of whether the business met the five-year requirement under Florida law.
The trial court did not err in submitting the five-year business existence requirement to the jury as a factual question. The jury's authority to determine compensation includes the authority to resolve disputed facts necessary to calculate that compensation, and the statute's language that "the jury shall determine solely the amount of compensation" does not prohibit the jury from determining other factual disputes related to damages.
[1] A jury may determine factual disputes relevant to the calculation of business damages in an eminent domain proceeding, even if the jury's primary role is to determine the…
[2] The statutory requirement that a business must have been in existence for five years to qualify for business damages in an eminent domain action is a factual predicate th…
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“The jury shall determine solely the amount of compensation to be paid, which compensation shall include: (a) The value of the property sought to be appropriated; (b) Where less than the entire property is sought to be appropriated, any damages to the remainder caused by the taking, including, when the action is by the Department of Transportation, county, municipality, board, district or other public body for the condemnation of a right-of-way, and the effect of the taking of the property involved may damage or destroy an established business of more than 5 years' standing, owned by the party whose lands are being so taken, located upon adjoining lands owned or held by such party, the probable damages to such business which the denial of the use of the property so taken may reasonably cause”
This statute defines what compensation the jury must determine in eminent domain cases and establishes the requirement for business damages that the business must have been in existence for more than five years.
Previewing 1 of 2 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, sought to take property owned by Marcelino Casiano-Torres, Naomi Casiano, and Daniel Casiano throu…
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 Action cases and more on FLexlaw
CAMPBELL, Acting Chief Judge.
In this appeal from an eminent domain judgment, appellant, State of Florida, Department of Transportation, challenges the award of business and severance damages to appellees, Marcelino Casiano-Torres, Naomi Casiano and Daniel Casiano. We determine that none of the issues raised by appellant constitute reversible error and, therefore, affirm. In doing so, we comment briefly on appellant’s argument that the trial court erred in submitting to the jury the resolution of the factual dispute as to whether appel-lees’ business had been in existence for five years as required by section 73.071(3)(b), Florida Statutes (1991). We find no error in submitting that disputed factual issue to the jury with the appropriate charge that the jury must make such a factual determination prior to addressing the issue of compensation for damage to such a business. See Fleissner v. Div. of Admin., State Dep’t of Transp., 298 So. 2d 547 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974).
Section 73.071(3)(a), (b) provides as follows:
(3) The jury shall determine solely the amount of compensation to be paid, which compensation shall include:
(a) The value of the property sought to be appropriated;
(b) Where less than the entire property is sought to be appropriated, any damages to the remainder caused by the taking, including, when the action is by the Department of Transportation, county, municipality, board, district or other public body for the condemnation of a right-of-way, and the effect of the taking of the property involved may damage or destroy an established business of more than 5 years’ standing, owned by the party whose lands are being so taken, located upon adjoining lands owned or held by such party, the probable damages to such business which the denial of the use of the property so taken may reasonably cause; any person claiming the right to recover such special damages shall set forth in his written defenses the nature and extent of such damages; ....
Appellant argues that the use of the phrase, “[t]he jury shall determine solely the amount of compensation to be paid ...” (emphasis supplied), prohibits the jury from determining other factual disputes relating to the issue of damages incurred as a result of the taking and compensation therefor. We disagree. Such an interpretation ignores the remainder of the statute which establishes what “compensation” shall include and the requirements for arriving at the proper amount of compensation.
Affirmed.
PATTERSON and FULMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Erna Fleissner v. Division OF Administration, 298 So. 2d 547 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)