GEORGE WORTH, APPELLANT,
v.
CITY OF WEST PALM BEACH 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.
George Worth appealed a decree foreclosing his vendor's lien against the City of West Palm Beach for property the city appropriated for a public street without condemnation proceedings. The Florida Supreme Court reversed and remanded because the trial court failed to properly assess damages, particularly the diminution in value of the remaining property and the destruction of valuable riparian rights.
The decree was reversed and remanded because the trial court failed to properly account for damages suffered, including the loss of riparian rights and the diminution in value of the remaining property caused by the public street's construction. The evidence showed the appropriated property's value far exceeded the $7,500 awarded.
“The measure of damages which should control is; first the value of the property; and second, the damage to the remainder of the property.”
Establishes the two-part framework for calculating damages in property appropriation cases.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWorth owned valuable lakefront property on Lake Worth with 112 feet of water frontage and riparian rights. The City appropriated a 51.45-foot-wide str…
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 Appropriation Of Property cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant filed his bill of complaint in the circuit court of Palm Beach County to foreclose a vendor's lien alleged to have accrued in his favor as to certain lands appropriated by the City of West Palm Beach for a public thoroughfare.
The lands of the appellant were appropriated by the City without the formality of condemnation proceedings, or any other legal proceedings so far as the record shows, being had to acquire the same.
The decree was in favor of the complainant in the court below, the appellant here, but the appellant objected to the decree because the amount decreed to be due the complainant was much less than the complainant contended was justly due to him from the City for the appropriation of his property.
The measure of damages which should control is; first the value of the property; and second, the damage to the remainder of the property.
•It is shown that the complainant in the court below, appellant here, owned a valuable piece of property having a water frontage on Lake Worth of One Hundred Twelve (112) feet and that the frontage on Lake Worth carried with the property the valuable privileges of riparian rights. The strip appropriated by the City was fifty-one and 45/100 feet wide, extending 112 feet long, running parallel with and next to the bulkhead.
This appeal is by the complainant in the court below. The question of the sufficiency of the bill of complaint *870to state grounds of equitable cognizance is not presented to us.
The only question raised by the assignment of error which it is necessary for us to consider is the alleged inadequacy of the amount of the decree.
It appears to us that the chancellor did not take into consideration the damage suffered by the complainant in the court below in his property or privilege of riparian rights by reason of the City appropriating this strip of land for street purposes. Certainly those rights were damaged to a great extent by reason of having a public thoroughfare built, constructed and maintained between the remainder of the property and the bulkhead or line where riparian rights begin and it mqy be said that the privacy of the riparian rights was totally destroyed by the construction and maintenance of the public street. The record shows that the remainder of the property, exclusive of riparian rights, was divested of a considerable part of its value by reason of the construction and maintenance of a public street which cut off the property from the water front.
Without considering either of these elements, it appears to us that the great preponderance of the evidence was that the value of the property appropriated by the City at the time it was appropriated was far in excess of the sum of Seven Thousand, Five Hundred ($7,500.00) Dollars.
For the reason stated, the decree is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
Beversed and remanded.
Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, -J. J., concur.
Strum, C.J., and Ellis and Brown, J.J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Daniels v. State Rd. Dep't of Fla., 170 So. 2d 846 (Fla. 1964)…Ind. 72, 143 N.E. 2d 666. It might be noted, also, that the construction of a street or highway may result only in damage to the-remaining property and not necessarily work a benefit thereto. See Worth v. City of West Palm Beach, 1931, 101 Fla. 868, 132 So. 689; Boxberger v. State Highway Commission, 126 Colo. 526, 251 P. 2d 920. Since, as noted, the appellants did. not raise in the court below the objection made, apparently as an after-thought, in their Reply Brief, concerning the question of whether the…
-
City OF Tampa v. The Tex. Co., 107 So. 2d 216 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958)…cribed by law.” In condemnation proceedings, the jury is authorized to award damages for depreciation of value of land not taken. State Road Department of Florida v. Zetrouer, 1932, 105 Fla. 650, 142 So. 217; Worth v. City of West Palm Beach, 1931, 101 Fla. 868, 132 So. 689; Doty v. City of Jacksonville, 1932, 106 Fla. 1, 142 So. 599. In Orgel, Valuation under Eminent Domain, Vol. 1, page 253 (2d ed. 1953), the following appears: “Section 54. Distinction between Damages Due and Damages Not Due to the Tak…
-
Doty v. City of Jacksonville, 106 Fla. 1 (Fla. 1932)…t’s adjacent remaining lands, are elements to be considered, and with respect to' which it is both permissible and proper that testimony may be introduced. Orange Belt R. Co. v. Craver, 32 Fla. 28, 13 So. 444; Worth v. West Palm Beach, 101 Fla. 868, 132 So. 689. These elements could not be determined by the view alone, and the evidence and testimony of witnesses should not be disregarded by the jury on these questions of value and damage; nok should they go outside of the evidence and base ¿heir verdict on…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence