MARGIE T. SIMMONS, DOROTHY KATHRYN MORMON, GLENDA R. MERCER, WILLIAM FRANK CRATE, AND SHIRLEY BISHOP, APPELLANTS,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, 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.
Property owners challenged an order of taking in an eminent domain proceeding, arguing the Department of Environmental Protection failed to comply with presuit negotiation requirements and failed to provide a good faith estimate based on valid appraisal. The court affirmed the order, holding that the Department satisfied its negotiation duties under Florida law by sending written offers and waiting the statutory period for a response.
The Department satisfied its statutory duty to negotiate in good faith by sending written offers complying with section 73.015 and waiting the requisite thirty-day period for a response. The failure of the property owners to respond to the offers ended the negotiation process, and the Department properly filed suit thereafter.
[1] A condemning authority satisfies its statutory duty to negotiate in good faith by sending written offers to the fee owner and awaiting a response for the statutorily pres…
[2] A property owner's failure to respond to written offers from a condemning authority terminates the negotiation process.
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 Department "must attempt to negotiate in good faith with the fee owner of the parcel to be acquired ... and must attempt to reach an agreement regarding the amount of compensation to be paid for the parcel."”
Establishes the statutory duty to negotiate in good faith under Florida Statutes section 73.015(1)
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Department of Environmental Protection sought to acquire parcel 42217000000 owned by five individuals. The Department sent two written offers to t…
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 Good Faith Estimate Of Value cases and more on FLexlaw
STRINGER, Judge.
This is an eminent domain case wherein the appellants, Margie T. Simmons, Dorothy Kathryn Mormon, Glenda R. Mercer, William Frank Crate, and Shirley Bishop, the owners of parcel 42217000000, challenge the entry of an order of taking. The appellants argue that the trial court erred in entering the order of taking because the Department of Environmental Protection (“the Department”) failed to comply with presuit negotiation requirements and failed to present a good faith estimate of value based on a valid appraisal. We affirm the order in its entirety. We write only to express our views on the Department’s duty to negotiate in good faith with the fee owners prior to bringing an eminent domain proceeding.
The Department’s duty to negotiate in good faith prior to bringing an eminent domain proceeding is set forth in section 73.015(1), Florida Statutes (2001). That section requires that the Department “must attempt to negotiate in good faith with the fee owner of the parcel to be acquired ... and must attempt to reach an agreement regarding the amount of compensation to be paid for the parcel.” § 73.015(1). In this case, it is undisputed that the Department sent out, and the appellants received, two written offers that complied with section 73.015. The appellants neglected to respond to the offers, and the Department filed suit after waiting the requisite thirty days under the statute. See § 73.015(l)(b). We reject the appellants’ argument that the Department’s duty to negotiate extended beyond its duty to send the written offers and await a response in this case. To the contrary, the appellants’ failure to respond to the offers ended the negotiations.
Affirmed.
SILBERMAN, J., and THREADGILL, EDWARD F., Senior Judge, concur.