STATE ROAD DEPARTMENT OF FLORIDA, AN AGENCY OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, AND LAKE COUNTY, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANTS,
v.
E. B. PETER, JR., 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 court held that the jury should not have considered damages for business interruption because the respondents failed to establish a predicate under the controlling statute.
The State Road Department appealed eminent domain awards for twenty-six parcels of land, focusing on four specific parcels. The jury awarded damages f…
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.
This is an appeal by the State Road Department of Florida in eminent domain proceedings in which the jury returned awards aggregating approximately $240,000.00 for twenty-six distinct parcels of land. Although the appellant sent up the entire transcript of the nine day trial, this appeal concerns only four of the parcels condemned.1
Several points have been presented, but it is necessary to discuss only one, viz., whether or not the court erred in permitting the jury to consider damages occasioned by business interruption. We find error and reverse inasmuch as the respondents laid no predicate under the controlling statute 2 for recovery of alleged losses due to interruption of business.
The issue may be pointed up in clearer perspective through the following chart:
In this context losses incurred in businesses are specifically limited by statute to established businesses of more than five years standing. Fla.Stat. § 73.10(4) F.S.A. Hooper v. State Road Department, Fla.App.1958, 105 So.2d 515; City of Tampa v. Texas Company, Fla.App.1958, 107 So.2d 216. In State Road Department v. Abel Investment Company, Fla.App. 1964, 165 So.2d 832, this court said:
“* * * The right of a defendant to damages for business losses as a consequence to the taking of land are derived solely from the statute and not from the ‘full compensation’ clause of section 29, Article XVI of the Florida Constitution.” (Emphasis added.)
Since business interruption damages claimed with respect to parcels 9, 21, 22 and 43 were not predicated on the statute, the cause must be reversed for a new trial or other proceedings consistent herewith.
Respondents’ motion for attorney fees on appeal is denied. See State Road *773Department v. Mutillo, Fla.App.1963, 155 So.2d 179.
Reversed and remanded.
WHITE, Acting C. J., KANNER, (Ret.), J., and REVELS, P. B., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Tampa-Hillsborough Cnty. Expressway Auth. v. K.E. Morris Alignment Serv., Inc., 444 So. 2d 926 (Fla. 1983)…v. State Road Department, 203 So. 2d 19 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967), cert. denied, 210 So. 2d 223 (Fla.1968); State Road Department v. Abel Investment Co., 165 So. 2d 832 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert. denied, 169 So. 2d 485 (Fla.1964); State Road Department v. Peter, 165 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964). It is true that none of the above-cited cases dealt with the precise issue that has arisen now. But in reasoning that “[i]f the legislature had intended the requirement that the business be located on the adjacent land for five y…
-
City OF Miami v. Coconut Grove Marine Props., Inc., 358 So. 2d 1151 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…ot constitutional imperative. Jamesson v. Downtown Development Authority of City of Fort Lauderdale, 322 So. 2d 510, 511 (Fla.1975). Failure to meet the statutory requirements will result in disallowance of the claim. State Road Department v. Peter, 165 So. 2d 771 (Fla.2d DCA 1964). Plaintiffs in the instant case failed to claim business damages in the initial condemnation action. They did not meet the statutory requirements for such a claim at that time, and they still do not. From the facts in this case, th…
-
State Rd. Dep't of Fla. v. Levato, 192 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966)…sal of the trial court judgment resulted. Condemnor suggests that the award was contrary to law and supports this stance with the cases of State Road Department v. Mutillo, Fla.App.1963, 155 So. 2d 179; State Road Department v. Peter, Fla.App.1964, 165 So. 2d 771. Indeed, these two cases do deny an award of fees to condemnees where the condemnor was the successful appellant. The rationale for these decisions is found in the Mutillo case: “In Conner v. State Road Department of Florida, Fla.1953, 66 So. 2d 25…
Authorities Cited
- City OF Tampa v. The Tex. Co., 107 So. 2d 216 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958)
- State Rd. Dep't of Fla. v. Abel Inv. Co., 165 So. 2d 832 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)
- Lemoult v. The Romano Mazza Med. Corp., 105 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958)
- State Rd. Dep't of Fla. v. Mutillo, 155 So. 2d 179 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)