CHARLOTTE COUNTY, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
ROTONDA PROJECT, LLC, A FLORIDA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed judgment for inverse condemnation, holding that Charlotte County's regulations, actions, and inactions caused a substantial deprivation of the property owner's economic use and investment-backed expectations in violation of the Florida Constitution.
Charlotte County's regulations, actions, and inactions caused a substantial deprivation of Rotunda's economic use of its property and denied its reasonable investment-backed expectations, constituting a compensable taking under the Florida Constitution.
[1] A governmental entity's regulations, actions, and inactions may constitute a compensable taking when they substantially deprive a property owner of economic use and deny…
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 intelligenceRotunda Project, LLC owned property in Charlotte County and alleged that the County, through its regulations, actions, and inactions, deprived Rotunda…
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 Penn Central Factors cases and more on FLexlaw
Charlotte County challenges the final judgment entered in favor of Rotunda Project, LLC, awarding damages for a taking in an inverse condemnation action. Rotunda alleged that Charlotte County, by its *250actions, inactions, and regulations, deprived Rotunda of the economic use of its property and denied Rotunda its reasonable “investment-backed expectations,” thereby causing an as-applied or partial taking as described in Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104, 124, 98 S.Ct. 2646, 57 L.Ed.2d 631 (1978).
Our review of the record indicates that there is little disagreement as to the facts of this case and that the issue on appeal is whether these facts support a finding of a compensable taking by the County. We agree with the trial court’s well-reasoned Order on Liability and affirm the finding “that Charlotte County by its regulations, actions and inaction has caused a substantial deprivation of the economic use of [Rotunda’s] property and denied [Rotunda’s] reasonable investment-backed expectations in violation of article X, section 6 of the Florida Constitution.” Because the County did not appeal the amount of the damages awarded, we affirm the final judgment without further comment.
Affirmed.
KELLY and MORRIS, JJ., Concur.