CITY OF JACKSONVILLE, APPELLANT,
v.
DAMON G. YERKES, JR., ET UX., 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 City of Jacksonville appealed a directed verdict awarding $17,000 in severance damages for property condemned for a sewer lift station. The court affirmed, holding that the trial judge properly struck the city's appraiser's testimony on enhancement damages because the statute permitting such offset did not apply to sewer facilities, and the city presented no other evidence to rebut the appellee's damage claim.
The trial court correctly struck the appraiser's testimony because Florida Statutes § 73.071(4) permits enhancement offset only for road, canal, levee, or water control facility condemnations, not sewer facilities. Additionally, the directed verdict was proper because after the city's evidence was stricken and no rebutting evidence was offered, only the appellee's $17,000 damage testimony remained uncontradicted.
[1] Enhancement in value of remaining adjoining property cannot be offset against severance damages unless the property is condemned for a road, canal, levee, or water contro…
[2] Evidence of enhancement must prove that the increase in value resulted directly and peculiarly to the landowner's remaining land, not just to the neighborhood generally.
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“Section 73.071(4), Florida Statutes, F.S.A., provides that enhancement in value of the remaining adjoining property shall be offset against damages when the property is being condemned for a road, canal, levee, or water control facility right-of-way. Since the purpose for which the property was condemned in the instant case does not fall within those purposes enumerated in the statute, no evidence of enhancement could properly be introduced”
Establishes the statutory limitation on when enhancement damages can be offset—it applies only to specific types of public works, not sewer facilities.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe City of Jacksonville condemned portions of the Yerkes' property to construct a sewer lift station. The parties stipulated that $2,000 was a fair v…
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 Enhancement In Value cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant condemned certain portions of appellee’s property for a sewer lift station. During the trial on damages, the judge granted a motion to strike that portion of the testimony of appellant’s appraiser dealing with severance damages. The motion was granted on the grounds that the appraiser’s opinion was based upon an improper application of the law concerning enhancement being set off against severance damages. The parties stipulated that $2,000 represented a fair value for the land actually taken and the judge directed a verdict in the amount of $17,000 as severance damage.
Appellant first contends that the lower court did not allow appellant to put on additional evidence from their appraiser to show that his opinion as to lack of severance damages was 'based upon something other than enhancement. It is clear from a reading of the testimony and the proffer in the record that the appraiser’s opinion as to the lack of severance damages was based upon the fact that the new system was more desirable in appearance and operation than the present system and thereby enhanced the value of the property.
Section 73.071(4), Florida Statutes, F.S.A., provides that enhancement in value of the remaining adjoining property shall be offset against damages when the property is being condemned for a road, canal, levee, or water control facility right-of-way. Since the purpose for which the property was condemned in the instant case does not fall within those purposes enumerated in the statute, no evidence of enhancement could properly be introduced likewise, before evidence of enhancement can be introduced it must be proven that the increase in value resulted directly and peculiarly to the landowner’s remaining land and not just to the neighborhood as a whole, Daniels v. State Road Department, 170 So.2d 846 (Fla.1964). No such evidence was proffered in the instant case.
Therefore, it appears that the judge was eminently correct in striking the testimony as to enhancement, Limmiatis v. Canal Authority, 253 So.2d 912 (Fla.App.1971); Anderson v. State Road Department, 204 So.2d 899 (Fla.App.1967).
Appellant’s second point on appeal deals with the issue of whether the trial court was correct in directing a verdict in the amount of $17,000 for severance damages. After the motion to strike the testimony of appellant’s appraiser had been granted and appellant put on no other evidence, the only evidence of severance damages was that of appellee’s witness who testified to the $17,000 sum. Therefore, the court had no choice but to grant the motion for directed verdict since there was no evidence to rebut or contradict the ap-pellee’s case, Garris v. Robeison, 146 So.2d 388 (Fla.App.1962).
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment appealed herein is affirmed.
CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and WIGGINTON, J„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Daniels v. State Rd. Dep't of Fla., 170 So. 2d 846 (Fla. 1964)
- Garris v. Robeison, 146 So. 2d 388 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)
- Anderson v. State Rd. Dep't, 204 So. 2d 899 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967)
- Limmiatis v. The Canal Auth. of the State of Fla., 253 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971)