FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND CONSUMER SERVICES, APPELLANT,
v.
KATHRYN COX, ET AL., APPELLEES
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 Department of Agriculture is not the prevailing party entitled to costs in an inverse condemnation action where it was defeated on liability and damages, despite the plaintiffs seeking more than the awarded amount.
The Department of Agriculture destroyed homeowners' citrus trees in an attempt to eradicate citrus canker. The homeowners sued in an inverse condemnat…
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 Taxation Of Costs cases and more on FLexlaw
In an inverse condemnation action, the Department of Agriculture appeals the trial court’s order denying its request for costs as the prevailing party pursuant to section 57.041, Florida Statutes. This action involves the Department’s destruction of backyard citrus trees of homeowners in Broward County in the Department’s futile attempt to eradicate citrus canker in this state.1 Even though the Department was defeated in its claim that no taking occurred,2 and the jury awarded damages, which resulted in a net award to the class of plaintiffs of $4,000,000, when the Department argued that no damages occurred, the Department still claims it prevailed because the class sought substantially more in damages than what the jury awarded.
We find the Department’s arguments to be frivolous. No matter how one looks at the facts, the owners prevailed on the significant issues. The mere fact that the owners sought more in damages than the jury awarded does not mean that they did not prevail on both issues of liability and damages.
Moreover, section 57.041, Florida Statutes, applies to all civil actions except those that are governed by specific statutes containing more particular provisions concerning the taxation of costs. See Morales v. Rosenberg, 919 So.2d 476, 480 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005). Sections 73.091 and 73.092 *1027specifically relate to condemnation proceedings, including inverse condemnation proceedings. See Volusia County v. Pickens, 435 So.2d 247, 248 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). Those statutes govern these proceedings.
Affirmed.
POLEN and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fla. Dep't OF Agric. & Consumer Servs. & The Fla. Comm'r of Agric. v. Bogorff, 132 So. 3d 249 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…inion. CIKLIN and GERBER, JJ., concur. . The Department also moved for attorney’s fees, claiming that it was the prevailing party. The trial court denied its motion, and this court affirmed on appeal. Fla. Dep’t of Agric. & Consumer Servs. v. Cox, 54 So. 3d 1026, 1026-27 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). . The Department’s reliance on Solid Waste Authority of Palm Beach County v. Parker, 622 So. 2d 1010 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993), is completely inapposite. It does not stand for the proposition that any fee in excess of the fe…
-
Caribbean Condo. v. The City OF Flagler Beach, 178 So. 3d 426 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015)…ge available to the governmental entity or enti- ■ ties and the property owner-during the 90-day-notice period or the 180-day-notice period. ■ . The trial court relied on language from ■ Florida Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services v. Cox, 54 So. 3d 1026, 1026-27 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011), providing that "[s]ections 73.091 and 73.092 specifically relate to condemnation proceedings, including inverse condemnation proceedings.” However, unlike here, the property owner in Cox was successful on her inverse co…
-
Fla. Dep't of Health v. Kenneth Woliner, M.D. (Fla. 1st DCA 2024)
Authorities Cited
- Haire v. Fla. Dep't OF Agric. & Consumer Servs., 870 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 2004)
- Agencias Maritimas Nicaraguenses, S.A. v. Usatorres, 435 So. 2d 247 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Dep't OF Agric. & Consumer Servs. v. Bogorff, 35 So. 3d 84 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)
- Bruno v. State, 48 So. 3d 835 (Fla. 2010)
- Jake & THE FAT MAN Bike Week USA, Inc. v. Biker Design, Inc., 919 So. 2d 476 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)
- Ileana Morales v. Gilda Rosenberg, 919 So. 2d 476 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)