LEE COUNTY, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
BARNETT BANKS, INC., 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 court held that expert testimony on the legal interpretation of a statute is inadmissible, and therefore, the expert witness fee award was reversed.
Lee County appealed an award of attorney's fees and costs in an eminent domain case, including an expert witness fee for testimony on the interpretati…
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 Legal Interpretation cases and more on FLexlaw
BLUE, Judge.
Lee County appeals the award of attorney’s fees and costs in this eminent domain case. The primary issue in this case was recently decided in favor of the appellant. See Lee County v. Pierpont, 693 So. 2d 994 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). Accordingly, we reverse.
We also reverse the $400 expert witness fee award. Barnett Bank called Mr. Hume to testify as an expert witness on the question of attorney’s fees. Mr. Hume’s testimony consisted only of his opinion as to the legal interpretation of section 73.092, Florida Statutes (Supp.1994). We reverse the award, not because Mr. Hume was wrong, see Pierpont, but because his testimony was not a proper subject for expert testimony. Expert testimony is not admissible concerning a question of law. Statutory construction is a legal determination to be made by the trial judge, with the assistance of counsels’ legal arguments, not by way of “expert opinion.” See Edward J. Seibert v. Bayport Beach and Tennis Club Ass’n, Inc., 573 So. 2d 889 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990), review denied, 583 So. 2d 1034 (Fla.1991); Devin v. City of Hollywood, 351 So. 2d 1022 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976).
Accordingly, we reverse the award of attorney’s fees and the expert witness fee, and remand for an award of attorney’s fees in accordance with Pierpont.
ALTENBERND, A.C.J., and FULMER, J., concur. BY ORDER OF THE COURT:
UPON CONSIDERATION, we deny the Appellee’s motion for rehearing and clarification, but grant its motion to certify the following question to the Florida Supreme Court as one of great public importance:
WHETHER THE CONDEMNING AUTHORITY’S GOOD FAITH ESTIMATE OF VALUE CAN BE CONSIDERED AN “OFFER” FOR THE CALCULATION OF ATTORNEY’S FEES UNDER SECTION 73.092, FLORIDA STATUTES (SUPP.1994)? Rehearing and clarification denied; question certified.
ALTENBERND, A.C.J., and BLUE and FULMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Strickland v. Timco Aviation Servs., Inc., 66 So. 3d 1002 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)…n issue of fact because the determination of the application of federal regulation is a legal question and not a proper matter for expert testimony. Cf. In re Estate of Williams, 771 So. 2d 7, 8 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Lee County v. Barnett Banks, Inc., 711 So. 2d 34, 34 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); T.J.R. Holding Co. v. Alachua County, 617 So. 2d 798, 800 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Ownby v. Tennessee Farmers Coop. Corp., No. M2008-00878-COA-R3-CV, 2009 WL 1392574, at *5 n. 2 (Tenn.Ct.App. May 18, 2009).…
-
Pierpont v. LEE Cnty., 710 So. 2d 958 (Fla. 1998)
-
Gyongyosi v. Miller, 80 So. 3d 1070 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)…he regulation provide a specific definition that was contrary to its ordinary meaning. Therefore, the trial court did not err in prohibiting an expert from defining the term demolition in NFPA 241 for the jury. See Lee County v. Barnett Banks, Inc., 711 So. 2d 34, 34 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (“Statutory construction is a legal determination to be made by the trial judge, with the assistance of counsels’ legal arguments, not by way of ‘expert opinion.’ ”). When a term is not defined, courts must look to its plain…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Devin v. The City OF Hollywood, 351 So. 2d 1022 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)
- Edward J. Seibert, A.I.A., Architect & Planner, P.A. v. Bayport Beach & Tennis Club Ass'n, Inc., 573 So. 2d 889 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)
- Miller v. State, 693 So. 2d 994 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)