J. B. CLAIBORNE, JR., ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
CITY OF JACKSONVILLE, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, 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 an eminent domain proceeding, the trial court excluded expert appraiser testimony regarding comparable sales of similar property located several miles away and in an adjoining county. The appellate court reversed, holding that distance and county location do not render comparable sales inadmissible as evidence in property valuation.
The trial court erred in excluding the comparable sales evidence. The two sales were comparable to the subject property, the distance was not so remote as to render them inadmissible, and the fact that one sale was located in an adjoining county does not lessen its admissibility.
[1] Evidence of comparable property sales is admissible in eminent domain proceedings even if the properties are located several miles from the subject property.
[2] The distance between a comparable property sale and the subject property in an eminent domain proceeding does not render the sale inadmissible if the distance is not so r…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“it is our conclusion that the two sales were comparable to the subject property, and the distance was not so remote as to render them inadmissible as evidence, and the fact that one sale was located in an adjoining county does not lessen its admissibility.”
Establishes the court's holding that comparable sales evidence should not be excluded based solely on geographic distance or county location.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellants sought to use two comparable sales in their expert appraisal testimony to establish the value of property being condemned through emine…
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 Comparable Sales cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal from a final judgment in an eminent domain proceeding, in which the appellants claim error by the trial court, inter alia, in excluding evidence relating to two sales of similar property located some distance from the property which is the subject of this eminent domain proceeding.
One expert appraiser, in testifying or attempting to testify, for the appellants, submitted as a comparable sale a parcel of land of 39.71 acres located several miles from the subject property, and described the same as being now improved with a mobile home park. The other appraiser testifying for appellants attempted to use as a comparable sale a parcel of 82 acres, located in the Ponte Vedra area, about 8.6 miles south of the subject property.
The trial court sustained objections against the use of these two sales as not being comparable because of distance, and due to the fact that one sale was located in St. Johns County.
In reviewing the descriptions of these properties, it is our conclusion that *258the two sales were comparable to the subject property, and the distance was not so remote as to render them inadmissible as evidence, and the fact that one sale was located in an adjoining county does not lessen its admissibility.1 For these reasons we hold that the trial court did commit error in excluding the testimony of appellants’ appraisers as to the sales mentioned supra.
In view of the fact that a retrial of this cause must be had because of the error set forth above, we do not deem it necessary to consider or pass upon the other errors assigned on this appeal particularly in view of the unlikelihood that they will reoccur on a new trial of this cause.
Reversed and remanded for a new trial.
SPECTOR, C. J., and WIGGINTON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Division OF Administration v. Samter, 393 So. 2d 1142 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…the resulting amount to compute the damages to the instant property was improper. .If the sales were otherwise comparable, the fact that they took place in an adjoining county is insufficient to justify exclusion. Claiborne v. City of Jacksonville, 260 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972); Rochelle v. State Road Department, 196 So. 2d 477 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967). . We of course do not preclude expert adjustments from sales which are generally and genuinely comparable so as to accommodate the distinctions which to a gr…
-
Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Roberts, 490 So. 2d 969 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)…of realty adjacent to transmission lines in Hernando County. Properties with comparable characteristics may be removed geographically from an immediate area, and still be admissible for purposes of evaluation. See Claiborne v. City of Jacksonville, 260 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972); Rochelle v. State Road Dept. of Florida, 196 So. 2d 477 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967). This determination is a matter largely within the discretion of the trial court. Staninger v. Jacksonville Ex [*972] pressway Authority, 182 So. 2d 483…
Authorities Cited
- Rochelle v. State Rd. Dep't of Fla., 196 So. 2d 477 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)