STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, APPELLANT,
v.
JORDAN ANSBACHER, ET UX, ET AL., 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.
The Florida Department of Transportation appealed a jury verdict in an eminent domain case involving property condemnation for road reconstruction. The court reversed and remanded because the jury improperly awarded compensation for diminished property access caused by road closures, which is non-compensable under Florida law.
Evidence of damages resulting from diminished access to non-abutting roads is non-compensable and was erroneously admitted. When the state takes action diminishing traffic flow or access to a non-abutting road and later appropriates property, compensation must be based on the property's value prior to the loss of access, with no compensation for the loss of access to non-abutting roads on remaining property.
[1] In eminent domain proceedings, evidence of non-compensable damages, such as the impact of diminished access resulting from the closure of non-abutting roads, is erroneous…
[2] When the state diminishes traffic flow or access to a non-abutting road without compensation, and subsequently appropriates a parcel of property, compensation for the con…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“when the state takes action that diminishes traffic flow or access to a non-abutting road (for which no compensation is paid), and then later appropriates a parcel of property, the state must pay compensation for the parcel condemned based on the parcel's value prior to the loss of access or traffic flow”
Establishes the controlling legal principle that compensation is based on pre-diminishment value, with no compensation for lost access to non-abutting roads
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe DOT reconstructed a portion of Southside Boulevard in Jacksonville, requiring condemnation of the Ansbachers' property. The property owners claime…
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 Valuation Of Condemned Property cases and more on FLexlaw
MICKLE, Judge.
The Department of Transportation (DOT) challenges the jury award rendered in this eminent domain proceeding. Of the several claims raised on appeal one compels reversal, to-wit: that evidence of non-eom-pensable damages was erroneously admitted at trial.
This eminent domain proceeding involves the reconstruction of a portion of Southside Boulevard in Jacksonville. Appellees, the owners of condemned parcels, claim a reduction in the value of their property caused by the substantial impairment of access thereto following the closure of certain local roadways intersecting with Southside Boulevard. At trial, in support of the claims of the property owners, appraisal testimony and evidence was admitted on the issue of the asserted loss of property value resulting from the impairment of access created by the new construction. Specifically, the extent to which the remaining property is diminished in value by reason of the impairment of access was illustrated by the use of comparable commercial property “paired sales,” that is, a comparison of the value of commercial property with suitable access as compared to the value of comparable property with unsuitable access. We agree with DOT that this evidence was admitted in error. Applying the recent Florida Supreme Court decision in Department of Transportation v. Gefen, 636 So. 2d 1345 (Fla.1994), we believe it was improper to include within the assessment of compensation herein any damages for the impact of diminished access as a result of the closure of the subject roads.
As to the proper valuation herein, as we interpret Gefen, when the state takes action that diminishes traffic flow or access to a non-abutting road (for which no compensation is paid), and then later appropriates a parcel of property, the state must pay compensation for the parcel condemned based on the parcel’s value prior to the loss of access or traffic flow. Hence, no compensation is ever paid for the loss of traffic flow or loss of access to a non-abutting road on the remainder of the appropriated property. Id. at 1346.
Because the jury’s verdict herein was tainted with an element of non-compensable damages, we must reverse and remand for a new valuation proceeding. We affirm, without discussion, the remaining issues raised on appeal.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.
VAN NORTWICK, J., concurs.
BOOTH, J., dissents with no written opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Grandpa's Park, Inc. v. State, 726 So. 2d 789 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…ach other to achieve the devaluation. Although Appellee has stated that view in its brief here, there are no cases so holding. Appellee relies on cases relating to diminished access or traffic flow, State, Department of Transportation v. Ansbacher, 672 So. 2d 660 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996), and State, Department of Transportation v. Kreider, 658 So. 2d 548 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), and further suggests that inverse condemnation is the only appropriate remedy. Ansbacher, supra, and Kreider, supra, are distinguishable in…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Dep't OF Transp. v. L.I. Gefen, 636 So. 2d 1345 (Fla. 1994)