WAYNE VERNON DEAN, MARTIN KAUFMAN AND ALBERT WRIGHT, AS TRUSTEES OF THE CHURCH OF THE BRETHREN, APPELLANTS,
v.
STATE ROAD DEPARTMENT OF FLORIDA, AN AGENCY OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
In a condemnation proceeding involving property seized by the State Road Department of Florida for road construction, a jury awarded the Church of the Brethren $24,500 in compensation. The trial judge granted a new trial, but the appellate court reversed, holding that the verdict was supported by the evidence regarding severance damages to the remaining property.
The appellate court held that when a condemning authority does not object to evidence of severance damages or to jury instructions allowing such damages, the only question for the trial judge is whether the verdict falls within the range and limits of the testimony adduced. The $24,500 verdict was within such range and therefore the new trial order must be reversed.
“It has been established that where the location of a road on land close to a church so impairs the usefulness of the property for church purposes, the effect constitutes an element of damage cognizable in a condemnation proceeding.”
Establishes the legal principle that severance damages to a church property caused by road construction are recoverable in condemnation actions.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe State Road Department condemned a portion of property owned by the Church of the Brethren where the church maintained a house of worship. The chur…
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 Property cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant received a jury verdict of $24,500 in a condemnation proceeding brought by the appellee, State Road Department of Florida. The property taken was a part of a parcel of land upon which the appellants, Church of the Brethren, maintained a house of worship. At the trial the only issue was the value of the property taken. After the verdict the trial judge granted appellee’s motion for a new trial upon the following grounds :
“(a) That the verdict is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence and justice of the cause and that if a new trial were not granted, it would be a miscarriage of justice.
“(b) That the amount of the verdict is grossly excessive and is not supported by the evidence adduced at the trial and is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence and law in the case.
“(c) That the verdict is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence so as to indicate improper decision on the part of the jury in that it acted through sympathy.”
On this appeal appellant contends that the verdict rendered was within the range and limits of the testimony adduced. The appellee contends that the only substantial testimony was that of its appraiser who set a much lower figure.
The condemning authority presented testimony of one appraiser. He set an amount for the actual square footage taken but stated that he had not made an allowance for the damage done to the remainder of the property because of the severance of the portion taken. The Church presented testimony which, if believed by the jury, was sufficient to establish that because of the portion taken the remainder of the *259property would be rendered practically useless as a place for a house of public worship. The appellant thereupon offered eyidence to show that the only alternative to abandonment of all church activity was to sell the remaining property and build elsewhere since the existing building could not feasibly be moved.
It has been established that where the location of a road on land close to a church so impairs the usefulness of the property for church purposes, the effect constitutes an element of damage cognizable in a condemnation proceeding. Durham & N. R. Co. v. Trustees of Bullock Church, 104 N.C. 525, 10 S.E. 761; see Baltimore & Potomac R. R. v. Fifth Baptist Church, 108 U.S. 317, 2 S.Ct. 719, 27 L.Ed. 739; cf. Edwards v. Miami Shores Village, Fla.1949, 40 So.2d 360.
The question then becomes whether, when the condemning authority fails to present evidence as to severance damages, a new trial may be granted upon a verdict which allows severance damages as testified to by the defendant’s witnesses. In this connection it is clear that the ap-pellee did not object to evidence proffered by the appellant-defendant as to the amount of severance damages or to the court’s instruction that such damages were allowable. Under these conditions we think that the only question for the trial judge was whether the amount set by the jury was within the range and limits of the testimony adduced. We hold that the verdict was within such range and limits. The order granting a new trial must be reversed upon the authority of Edwards v. Miami Shores Village, Fla.1949, 40 So.2d 360; see also Houston Texas Gas and Oil Corporation v. Hoeffner, Fla.App.1961, 132 So.2d 38.
Because of this holding it is apparent that the trial court’s other grounds for granting a new trial are inapplicable. In addition, we hold that the record totally fails to support the conclusion that the jury verdict was influenced by passion or sympathy.
' Accordingly, the order granting a new trial is reversed with directions to enter judgment upon the verdict.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Donahoo, 412 So. 2d 400 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)…nsportation, 333 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). Cf. City of Jacksonville v. Schumann, 199 So. 2d 727 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967), cert. denied, 204 So. 2d 327 (Fla.), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 981, 88 S.Ct. 1101, 19 L.Ed.2d 1278; Dean v. State Road Department, 165 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964), cert. denied, 169 So. 2d 389 (Fla.). Most of the remaining acts complained of by the appellees were only temporary invasions that were remedied by DOT and hence do not constitute a taking. See State Road Department v. Darby, 109…
-
Division OF Administration v. W. Palm Beach Garden Club, 352 So. 2d 1177 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)…Northcutt, supra at 713. Thus any such damage tantamount to an actual taking, despite the absence of physical invasion or trespass, has been held to be com-pensable and we think, properly so. A Florida case in point is Dean v. State Road Department, 165 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1964). In Dean, the condemning authority took part of the property for a road and the court allowed severance damages because the remaining church premises, were rendered practically useless as a place of public worship and thus a cogn…
-
Trinity Temple Church OF GOD IN Christ, Inc. v. Orange Cnty., 681 So. 2d 765 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)…or religious purposes for which they were formed. We agree with the trial court that severance damages are the appropriate element of damages to award when a church’s parking spaces are lost through a partial taking. Dean v. State Road Department, 165 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964). A church is not entitled to business damages under section 73.071(3)(b) (1995). AFFIRMED. COBB and ANTOON, JJ., concur. . Trinity received sums for the partial taking as well as severance damages-. This appeal involves only th…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Baltimore & Potomac R.R. Co. v. Fifth Baptist Church, 108 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1883)
- Houston Tex. GAS & OIL Corp. v. Hoeffner, 132 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961)
- Edwards v. Miami Shores Vill., 40 So.2d 360 (Fla. 1949)