ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, APPELLANT,
v.
COY A. KOONTZ, JR., 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.
The court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because a finding of liability in an inverse condemnation action, even when labeled final, is not a final or appealable order when damages remain to be assessed.
A finding of liability in an inverse condemnation action is neither a final order nor an appealable non-final order when jurisdiction is expressly reserved to assess damages.
[1] A judgment finding liability in an inverse condemnation action is not a final or appealable order when the court expressly reserves jurisdiction to assess damages.
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 intelligenceThe St. Johns River Water Management District appealed a judgment finding it liable for inverse condemnation but expressly reserving jurisdiction to a…
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 Reserved Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We address this inverse condemnation case for the third time. In St. Johns River Water Management District v. Koontz, 861 So. 2d 1267 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (Koontz II), we dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We explained at that time that, despite the fact that the order was labeled a “Final Judgment,” it was not final because further judicial labor was expressly contemplated. Id. After further proceedings, Appellant once again filed an appeal wherein it represented in its notice that it was challenging a “Final Judgment.” The “Final Judgment,” despite being labeled as such, once again is not a final order because it merely makes a finding of liability but expressly reserves jurisdiction to assess damages against Appellant for having wrongfully taken Appel-lee’s property. As we have previously held, a finding of liability in an inverse condemnation action is neither a final order nor an appealable non-final order. Osceola v. Best Diversified, Inc., 830 So. 2d 139 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002).1
APPEAL DISMISSED.
PALMER, J., and ORFINGER, M., Senior Judge, concur. TORPY, J., concurs and concurs specially, with opinion.
. The instant action was not brought under the Bert J. Harris, Jr., Private Property Rights Protection Act, section 70.001, Florida Statutes (2003), because the acts of Appellant preceded the effective date of this legislation. Therefore, the recently promulgated Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(viii) is not available as a basis for jurisdiction.
[*519] TORPY, J.,
concurring and concurring specially.
I ana constrained to agree with the majority because we do not have jurisdiction to do otherwise. If we did, I would affirm the trial court for the reasons expressed by Judge Pleus in Koontz II. Moreover, I would add that, in my view, Appellant has waived its right to challenge the lower court’s order by agreeing to issue the permit.
Pursuant to subsections 373.617(3) and (4), Florida Statutes (2003), Appellant had four choices after the lower court held that it had taken Appellee’s property. It could: (1) agree to issue the permit; (2) agree to pay damages; (3) modify its decision; or (4) do nothing for 90 days, in which case the court could order Appellant to do 1, 2 or 3. Here, Appellant chose option one with the proviso that it reserved the right to challenge the court’s order. The added proviso, however, is not authorized by the statute. Had Appellant wished to challenge the lower court’s finding, it should have done nothing for 90 days, giving the lower court the option to order that it do 1, 2 or 3. Once an appropriate and final order was entered, Appellant would have had the right to appeal. In electing to issue the permit instead, I think Appellant waived its right to challenge the court’s ruling. See Dargis v. Maguire, 156 So. 2d 897 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963) (compliance with court order waives right to appeal, even if compliance expressly conditioned on reservation of right to appeal).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
ST. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist. v. Coy A. Koontz, 77 So. 3d 1220 (Fla. 2011)…the orders issued by the trial court did not constitute final orders or appealable non-final orders. See St. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist. v. Koontz, 861 So. 2d 1267, 1268 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (Koontz II); St. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist. v. Koontz, 908 So. 2d 518, 518 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (Koontz III). After the trial court entered a judgment assessing damages in favor of Coy A. Koontz, Jr., as personal representative of the Estate of Mr. Koontz, St. Johns filed an appeal to review that judgment. See Koontz I…
-
ST. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist. v. Coy A. Koontz, Jr., 5 So. 3d 8 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009)…Court. See Koontz v. St Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist., 720 So. 2d 560 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) [*9] [“Koontz /”]; St. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist. v. Koontz, 861 So. 2d 1267 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) [“Koontz 17”]; St. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist. v. Koontz, 908 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) [“Koontz III ”]. We affirm. This case involves a landowner, Mr. Koontz, who, in 1994, requested permits from the District so that he could develop a greater portion of his commercial property than was authorized by existing regu…
-
State of Fla. Dep't OF Transp. v. Bd. OF Supervisors OF ST. John's Water Control Dist., 981 So. 2d 605 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…isagree. In this case, a final judgment awarding compensation has been entered. Therefore, this court has jurisdiction. See Osceola County v. Best Diversified, Inc., 830 So. 2d 139 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); see also St. Johns Water Mgmt. Dist. v. Koontz, 908 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)(a “final Judgment” is not appealable if it merely makes a finding of liability “but expressly reserves jurisdiction to assess damages against [the taker] for having wrongfully taken [ ] the property”). As to the merits, we find…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Osceola Cnty. v. Best Diversified, Inc., 830 So. 2d 139 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)
- Merrill v. Roxie Merrill, 861 So. 2d 1267 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)
- Dargis v. Maguire, 156 So. 2d 897 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)
- ST. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist. v. Coy A. Koontz, Jr., 861 So. 2d 1267 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)