JUAN VALDIVIA, PETITIONER,

v.

GROWERS EQUIPMENT CO., PANEL DEVELOPMENT CO., FEDERATED MUTUAL IMPLEMENT & HARDWARE INS. CO. AND F. I. C., RESPONDENTS

Citator

Cited By

• Vero Beach Shores, Inc. v. Nolte, 467 So. 2d 1041 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)
  …estment use only if there is a present demand for the property. However, the court in Walt Disney World Co. did not impose the requirement of a present demand. Appellant’s reliance on Williams v. Simpson, 209 So. 2d 262 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 212 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 1968), is similarly misplaced. In the present case, it is proper to consider speculative investment as the highest and best use. If there is no present demand for the property, that will affect the value which the appraiser attached to it. In…
• Fla. Rock Indus., Inc. v. Bystrom, 485 So. 2d 442 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
  …re comparable sales indicated present demand for the property). Present market sales of unimproved land which may be based on the buyers’ expectations of “future potential use”, Williams v. Simpson, 209 So. 2d 262 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968), cert. denied, 212 So. 2d 629 (Fla.1968), are evidence of present market value. The future uses to which the property may be put is a matter of conjecture. The presence of an active sales market and of resulting market value are matters of fact, not speculation., The courts hav…
• Sec. Mgmt. Corp. v. Markham, 516 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)
  …stimony because it was based on a false premise, but their motion was denied. The testimony should have been excluded because it was based on speculation and as such was inadmissible. Williams v. Simpson, 209 So. 2d 262 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 212 So. 2d 629 (Fla.1968). As stated before, our review of the record satisfies us that on January 1, 1983, appellants did not have building permits, plan approval, or the necessary state permits to construct a 1,500 unit development on the subject property. In fa…