JOHN LAW AYERS ESTATE, APPELLANT,
v.
HERNANDO COUNTY, ETC., 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.
In an eminent domain case, the court reversed and remanded for a new trial because the county's valuation witness provided unsupported testimony and improperly suggested to the jury that the county would not take all entitled land, requiring the trial judge to allow a mid-trial amendment of the notice of taking.
A trial in an eminent domain case must be reversed and remanded when the county's valuation witness provides inherently incredible testimony lacking documentation and improperly influences the jury regarding the scope of the taking.
[1] A valuation witness in an eminent domain case whose testimony lacks documentary support and cannot be corroborated provides inherently incredible evidence requiring rever…
[2] A trial court commits reversible error by permitting a county employee to suggest to the jury that the notice of taking is inaccurate and that the property owner will not…
Previewing 2 of 2 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“Although he said that he 'used market data, interviews with [persons] and other materials ... to come up with these adjustments,' on cross-examination he would not or could not produce any of the market data or names of persons to support his statements.”
The court describing the county's valuation witness's inability to support his opinion testimony.
Hernando County condemned property belonging to the Ayers Estate. The county presented a witness to testify about the property's value, but the witnes…
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 Just Compensation cases and more on FLexlaw
DAUKSCH, Judge.
This is an appeal from a final judgment in an eminent domain case.
For two reasons we must reverse the judgment and remand the case for a new trial. The first reason is that the person the county called as a witness as to the value of the property was unable or unwilling to pro vide the court and jury with proper documentation and support for his opinion as to the value of the property being taken. Although he said that he “used market data, interviews with [persons] and other materials ... to come up with these adjustments,” on cross-examination he would not or could not produce any of the market data or names of persons to support his statements. His testimony was inherently incredible.
The second reason is that this same witness, a county employee, was permitted, over objection, to tell the jury that the notice of taking was not accurate; that the county was not really going to take all of the land it would be entitled to, under the ultimate judgment, so the appellant was not going to lose as much as had been originally proposed. Thus, he suggested that the jury award a lesser amount than what appellant would get under the entire taking. Although the appellant sought a mistrial for this behavior, the trial judge allowed the county to “amend” its notice of taking midtrial. Once that skunk was tossed into the jury box, the trial needed aborting.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
HARRIS and ANTOON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fla. Dep't OF Agric. & Consumer Servs. v. Lopez-Brignoni, 114 So. 3d 1135 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)…domain case where an appraiser could not explain his 50% adjustment to a comparable sale such that “[i]t is clear that the 50% figure ... came only from the top of [the appraiser’s] head.” 393 So. 2d at 1145; see also Ayers Estate v. Hernando Cnty., 706 So. 2d 349, 350 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (striking an appraiser’s testimony because “[a]l-though he said that he ‘used market data, interviews with [persons] and other materials ... to come up with these adjustments,’ on cross-examination he would not or could not…