325 WEST ADAMS STREET, LTD., AND RICHARD MINARTZ, APPELLANTS,
v.
CITY OF JACKSONVILLE, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, 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 involving property taken for a courthouse, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's order for a new trial because the jury instruction on anticipating property value increases violated Florida statutory law by allowing consideration of value increases resulting solely from knowledge of the project location.
The jury instruction was erroneous and contrary to Florida Statute § 73.071(5), which prohibits consideration of any increase or decrease in property value occurring after the project scope is known in the market if such change results solely from knowledge of the project location. The trial court properly granted a new trial, and on remand must give an instruction in accordance with the statute.
[1] A jury instruction that allows consideration of property value increases solely due to the anticipation of a specific public project's location, after the project's scope…
[2] In eminent domain cases, any increase or decrease in property value that occurs after the scope of the project is known in the market and is solely a result of knowledge…
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“Any increase or decrease in the value of any property to be acquired which occurs after the scope of the project for which the property is being acquired is known in the market, and which is solely a result of the knowledge of the project location, shall not be considered in arriving at the value of the property acquired.”
This statutory language establishes the controlling law that prohibits consideration of value changes resulting solely from knowledge of project location.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe City of Jacksonville condemned property owned by 325 West Adams Street, Ltd. and Richard Minartz to build a new downtown county courthouse. A jury…
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 Fair Market Value cases and more on FLexlaw
POLSTON, J.
Appellants 325 West Adams Street, Ltd. and Richard Minartz appeal the trial court’s order granting a new trial in an eminent domain case relating to property taken to build a courthouse. The trial court ordered a new trial after the jury rendered its verdict, based on allegations of juror misconduct. Appellee City of Jacksonville cross-appeals and asserts, as an alternative basis for granting a new trial, that the trial court erred by giving a jury instruction contrary to the law. Because we agree with the City of Jacksonville that the jury instruction was in error, we affirm the trial court’s order granting the new trial without addressing the ruling on juror misconduct.
Appellants proposed the following jury instruction regarding anticipated increases in value, entitled “Anticipation of the New Downtown County Courthouse Project”:
Fair market value, which you may use to determine the award to the owners, may reflect an increase in value due to the anticipation of the new downtown county courthouse project in combination with other diverse influences or market forces in the subject neighborhood. The owners of the property taken are entitled to such increase even if occurring after the new downtown county courthouse is announced to the public.
The trial court read this proposed instruction to the jury, except for the last sentence. In closing arguments, the appellants argued that the jury “can consider the increase in value due to the public announcement of this project, this project, the new courthouse.”
The jury instruction given is contrary to the applicable eminent domain statutory language:
Any increase or decrease in the value of any property to be acquired which occurs after the scope of the project for which the property is being acquired is known in the market, and which is solely a result of the knowledge of the project location, shall not be considered in arriving at the value of the property acquired. For the purpose of this section, the scope of the project for which the property is being acquired shall be presumed to be known in the market on or after the condemnor executes a resolution which depicts the location of the project.
Section 73.071(5), Fla. Stat. (2002). Reading the jury instruction as given constitutes reversible error because it is misleading and an erroneous statement of the law. See Mogavero v. State, 744 So. 2d 1048, 1050 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).1 Accordingly, on remand, we direct the trial court to give an instruction in accordance with section 73.071(5).
AFFIRMED and REMANDED for a new trial with directions.
BROWNING and HAWKES, JJ., concur. . There is no conflict between section 73.071(5) and Department of Transportation v. Nalven, 455 So. 2d 301 (Fla.1984). In Nalven, the Florida Supreme Court ruled that the increase in property values could be considered, but only the probable alignment of the project (1-75) in Manatee County was known. Id. at 308. Section 73.071(5) prohibits increased or decreased value resulting from anticipation of the actual project location, not just a generally known area as in Nalven. Therefore, section 73.071(5) is consistent with, not contrary to, judicial determinations of full and just compensation. See e.g., State Road Dep't v. Chicone, 158 So. 2d 753 (Fla.1963)(holding that a decrease in property value as a result of the prospect of condemnation cannot be properly considered in arriving at full and just compensation).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Allison Transmission, Inc. v. J.R. Sailing, Inc., 926 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…fuse the jury and cause them to arrive at a conclusion that otherwise they would not have reached is cause for reversal and a new trial. Collins Fruit Co. v. Giglio, 184 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966); 325 W. Adams St., Ltd., v. City of Jacksonville, 863 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003), review denied, 876 So. 2d 562 (Fla.2004); Sw. Ins. Co. v. Stanton, 390 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). This court must address another issue. It deals with the Lemon Law statute, which provides in section 681.104(2)(a): If the…
-
Dames v. 926 Co., Inc., 925 So. 2d 1078 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)…of an increase in value that results from anticipation of the project and occurs prior to the announcement of the project’s precise location. See Dep’t of Transp. v. Nalven, 455 So. 2d 301 (Fla.1984); 325 W. Adams St., Ltd. v. City of Jacksonville, 863 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003), review denied, 876 So. 2d 562 (Fla.2004). To the extent the values of property within the redevelopment area either increased or decreased only after the scope of the project became known and solely because of the project, such…
-
Willingham v. City OF Jacksonville, 861 So. 2d 98 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed and Remanded for a new trial. See 325 West Adams Street, Ltd. v. City Of Jacksonville, Case Number 1D02-4522, 863 So. 2d 380, 2003 WL 22927206 (Fla. 1st DCA Dec. 12, 2003). BROWNING, POLSTON and HAWKES, JJ. Concur.…
Authorities Cited
- State Rd. Dep't of Fla. v. Chicone, 158 So. 2d 753 (Fla. 1963)
- The Dep't OF Transp. OF the State OF Fla. v. Nalven, 455 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 1984)
- Mogavero v. State, 744 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)