ONE STOP 76, INC., ALFONSO F. CASTRO AND CLEMENCIA D. CASTRO, APPELLANTS,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, 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 Fourth District reversed a directed verdict for DOT in a condemnation case, holding that the jury should have decided whether business activities on the remaining property were integral to the convenience store business or separate enterprises.
A directed verdict for the condemnor was improper where evidence existed that the owner conducted business activities on the remaining un-condemned portion of the property, and the jury should have determined whether those activities were part of the convenience store business or separate and distinct.
[1] In a condemnation case, whether business activities conducted on remaining un-condemned property are integral to the business located on the condemned portion or constitu…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDOT condemned 1.359 acres of a 2.072-acre parcel owned by One Stop 76, Inc. and the Castros. The parties settled the real property damages claim but p…
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 Business Damages In Eminent Domain cases and more on FLexlaw
STEVENSON, J.
The instant appeal stems from the Department of Transportation’s (“DOT”) condemnation of 1.359' acres of a 2.072-acre parcel owned by the appellants, One Stop 76, Inc. and Alfonso and Clemencia Castro. The parties settled the appellants’ claim for real property damages, but went to trial on the issue of business damages. At the conclusion of the evidence, the trial court directed a verdict in favor of DOT after finding that there was no evidence that anything other than activities that were separate .and distinct from the business of the convenience store, located on the portion of the property that was taken, were conducted on the remaining, un-con-demned. portion of the parcel. Our review of the record indicates that there was some evidence, that the appellants were engaging in business activities on the remaining portion of the parcel and the question of whether such activities were part and parcel of the business of the convenience store or separate and distinct is one that should have been resolved by the jury. See generally Blockbuster Video, Inc. v. Department of Transp., 714 So. 2d 1222 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); Palm Beach County v. Awadallah, 538 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 4th DCA), review denied, 548 So. 2d 662 (Fla.1989).
REVERSED and REMANDED.
KLEIN and HAZOURI, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
9863 W. Atl. Ave., Inc. v. State of Fla. Dep't OF Transp., 851 So. 2d 191 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…538 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997), is also distinguishable because, although the entire building was taken, there was evidence that business was also being conducted through activities which were operated on the remaining parking lot. One Stop 76, Inc. v. DOT, 762 So. 2d 962 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000), is also distinguishable because there was evidence of business activity on the remaining portion. In the present case there was no evidence of business activity on the remainder, and we therefore affirm the summary judgment. T…
Authorities Cited
- Palm Beach Cnty. v. Ziyad Awadallah and Adnan Awadallah, 538 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)
- Blockbuster Video, Inc. v. State, 714 So. 2d 1222 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)