HENRY E. BALDWIN ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
MIAMI MERCANTILE CENTER, INC., 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 appellate court affirmed a trial court's order apportioning a condemnation award between landowners and a lessee, holding that the apportionment did not require a jury.
No, the trial court did not err in denying the landowners' request for a jury apportionment.
“In a condemnation suit a jury awarded $405,399 for certain lands. Later, on hearing without a jury, the trial court entered an "Order on Apportionment" by which $183,200 was allotted to the owners and $222,199 to the lessee, the holder of a 99-year lease.”
This quote describes the factual background of the case, including the jury's initial award and the trial court's subsequent apportionment order.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFollowing a jury award of $405,399 in a condemnation suit, the trial court, without a jury, entered an order apportioning the award. The landowners re…
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 Apportionment Of Condemnation Award cases and more on FLexlaw
In a condemnation suit a jury awarded $405,399 for certain lands. Later, on hearing without a jury, the trial court entered an “Order on Apportionment” by which $183,200 was allotted to the owners and $222,199 to the lessee, the holder of a 99-year lease. The owners appealed and contended, inter alia, that the trial court erred in denying their request for the apportionment to be made by a jury. The trial judge was eminently correct in proceeding without a jury. Cravero v. Florida State Turnpike Authority, Fla.1956, 91 So.2d 312, 314; Rich v. Harper Neon Company, Fla.App. 1960, 124 So.2d 750, 751; Parker v. Armstrong, Fla.App.1960, 125 So.2d 138.
The other questions raised on the appeal have been examined and found to be without merit. No error having been made to appear, the order appealed from should be and hereby is
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lovett v. The City OF Jacksonville Beach, 187 So. 2d 96 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966)…te that appellant suffered any detriment thereby. It is the law in this jurisdiction that the apportionment of the total award is to be made by the court in a supplemental proceeding without benefit of jury. Baldwin v. Miami Mercantile Center, Inc., 145 So. 2d 881 (Fla.App.1962); Parker v. Armstrong, 125 So. 2d 138 (Fla.App.1960) ; Rich v. Harper Neon Company, 124 So. 2d 750 (Fla.App.1960); Cravero v. Florida State Turnpike Authority, 91 So. 2d 312 (Fla.1956). 2. Appellant’s Point II, supra, is without merit…
Authorities Cited
- Parker v. Armstrong, 125 So. 2d 138 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960)
- State of Fla. ex rel. Maule Indus., Inc. v. Honorable George E. Holt, 91 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 1956)
- Volpe v. Volpe, 124 So. 2d 750 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)
- Quick v. Great Atl. & Pac. TEA Co., 124 So. 2d 750 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960)