DADE COUNTY
v.
SWETLAND, ET AL.
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 this eminent domain case, the court ruled that Dade County's 'zoned right-of-way' ordinance provisions must be disregarded when determining just compensation for condemned property. The court held that application of the ordinance is a matter of law, not fact, and that expert appraisers must value the property as if the ordinance did not exist.
The court held that the 'zoned right-of-way' provisions must be disregarded entirely in determining compensation. Expert appraisers must testify as to fair market value without consideration of the ordinance or any limitations on use it imposed. No testimony or evidence concerning the ordinance or its effects on property use or value is admissible.
[1] The interpretation and application of a zoning ordinance in a condemnation proceeding is a matter of law for the court, not a question of fact for the jury.
[2] In eminent domain proceedings, compensation for a taking must be determined as if zoning provisions that diminish property value had never been enacted.
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“determination of the application of the ordinance is a matter of law and So rules”
Establishes the court's holding that ordinance interpretation is a legal question for the court, not a factual question for appraisers or jury
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDade County initiated condemnation proceedings against multiple defendants to take certain parcels of land. The defendants moved to exclude evidence 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 Valuation Of Condemned Property cases and more on FLexlaw
This cause came on to be heard upon the motion of certain of the defendants to disregard the “zoned, right-of-way” in determining compensation and to exclude evidence relating thereto. The petitioner, Dade County, has asked the court to hear testimony concerning the meaning and provisions of the ordinance but the court is of the opinion that determination of the application of the ordinance is a matter of law and So rules. The court has given the county the right to proffer its evidence into the record but has not considered said proffer in connection with the decision on this motion. The court has considered argument of counsel and previous decisions of this court on the identical provisions of this ordinance.
It is therefore ordered and adjudged that full compensation for the taking of the parcels in this case shall be determined as though the Dade County “zoned right-of-way” provisions had never been enacted and did not exist prior to or on the date of valuation in this cause. The expert real estate appraisers who will testify in this cause may testify to their opinion of the fair market value of the part taken and damages, if any, to the remainder as to each parcel, but their opinion must entirely disregard the “zoned right-of-way” provisions, and any limitations on the use of the properties invloved herein, and the effect, if any, in diminishing the fair market value which may have been caused thereby or result therefrom prior to or on the date of valuation. No testimony or evidence shall be allowed directly or indirectly before the jury concerning the “zoned right-of-way” provisions or their effect, if any, on the use or value of the properties involved in this cause. The court relies on and adopts the reasoning of other circuit judges as expressed in the cases of Dade County v. Carr-Well Estates, Inc., 32 Fla. Supp. 144 (1969), Dade County v. Bar-Zac, Inc., 35 Fla. Supp. 122 (1971), and Dade County v. Nunley, 35 Fla. Supp. 125 (1971).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Dade Cnty. v. Carr-Well Ests., Inc., 32 Fla. Supp. 144 (Dade Cty. Cir. Ct. 1969)
- Dade Cnty. v. Bar-Zac, Inc., 35 Fla. Supp. 122 (Dade Cty. Cir. Ct. 1971)
- Dade Cnty. v. Nunley, 35 Fla. Supp. 125 (Dade Cty. Cir. Ct. 1971)