FRANK LEE GRIFFIN AND SOPHIE LEE GRIFFIN, HIS WIFE, INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A F. L. GRIFFIN COMPANY, INC., PETITIONERS,
v.
CITY OF JACKSONVILLE, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, RESPONDENT
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.
Landowners petitioned for a writ of certiorari to review a trial court's order denying their motion to amend their answer in a condemnation suit. The court held that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the amendment, which raised jurisdictional questions about whether the condemning authority presented sufficient evidence of necessity for the taking.
The trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to amend. A condemning authority must present sufficient evidence of necessity before any burden shifts to the landowner, and failure to do so defeats the petition even if the landowner offers no evidence. The proposed amendment raised jurisdictional questions that should have been granted, particularly in light of the Ball decision and the ample time remaining before trial.
[1] A condemning authority must present sufficient evidence of necessity before any burden shifts to the landowner in a condemnation suit.
[2] Resolutions of a condemning authority reciting its findings for the need of land do not constitute proof of necessity.
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 was error on the trial court's part when he entered the Order of Taking, supra, without requiring the condemning authority to present sufficient evidence of necessity of taking as is initially required before any burden shifts to the landowner.”
Establishes the fundamental requirement that the condemning authority bears the initial burden of presenting evidence of necessity
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 instituted a condemnation suit against the Griffins to take their land. The Griffins filed an amended answer on June 1, 1973,…
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 Jurisdictional Question cases and more on FLexlaw
[*91] JOHNSON, Judge.
This is on Petition for Writ of Certiora-ri to review an Order of the Circuit Court of Duval County, Florida, denying the landowners’ (Petitioners herein) motion for leave to amend their answer in a condemnation suit instituted by the City of Jacksonville.
The motion set out in detail the proposed particulars in which the defendants wanted to amend their answer. The Order of Taking of the subject land was entered on June 20, 1973. The defendants filed their first amended answer on June 1, 1973, in which the defendants alleged that they were without knowledge as to allegations in the paragraph of the Complaint in which the City of Jacksonville claimed to need the lands in question and the purpose for which it is needed, being paragraphs 3 and 4. A notice was served on the defendants on June 5, 1973, that the entry of the Order of Taking would be heard on June 20, 1973. On June 20, 1973, the trial court, without taking any testimony or receiving any other evidence on the question of the necessity of the taking, entered its Order of Taking, reciting therein, (Paragraph Two) :
“That the pleadings in this cause are sufficient, and the plaintiff is properly exercising its delegated authority.”
Some testimony was taken at this hearing on the question of appraisals, damages and compensation, but none was taken on the question of necessity of taking the lands in question or for what purpose.
It was error on the trial court’s part when he entered the Order of Taking, supra, without requiring the condemning authority to present sufficient evidence of necessity of taking as is initially required before any burden shifts to the landowner. When the condemning authority does not present any evidence, the petition for condemnation fails even though the landowner has offered no evidence supporting his position. The resolutions of the condemning authority reciting its findings for need of the land, does not constitute proof of necessity.1
The Ball case, supra, was handed down by the Supreme Court of Florida, on or about July 18, 1973. The trial of condemnation of the Petitioners’ land was set for September 5, 1973, and the motion by the defendants to amend their answer in the light of the Ball decision was filed July 30, 1973, and the order denying the motion was filed August 21, 1973.
At the time of the filing of the motion, which is the subject question involved in the Petition herein, there was sufficient time between that date, July 30, 1973, and September S, 1973, to afford the condemning authority ample time to reply to, or to correct the error in the proceedings before trial time. In view of the holding of the Supreme Court of Florida in the Ball case, supra, it was an abuse of discretion of the trial court not to grant the motion to amend. The proposed answer alleged (in the motion) a jurisdictional question which should have caused the trial court to grant the motion. The petition for certiorari was timely filed to review the order of August 21, 1973.
The Order is reversed and the matter remanded to the lower court for further proceedings.
The fact that the defendants had, by order of court, drawn down the deposit made pursuant to the Order of Taking does not alter this opinion, except that the trial court should track the statute when the deposit is withdrawn from the Clerk of the Circuit Court.
Reversed and remanded.
SPECTOR, Acting C. J., and BOYER, J., concur. . Ball v. City of Tallahassee, 281 So. 2d 333 (Fla.1973).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
City OF Jacksonville v. Griffin, 346 So. 2d 988 (Fla. 1977)…ng without first hearing testimony or receiving any other evidence as to necessity. The District Court of Appeal, First District, granted certiorari and reversed and remanded for the purpose of taking such testimony. Griffin v. City of Jacksonville, 299 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974). After remand the trial court again entered an order of taking. The evidence then before the court established that the City adopted a Neighborhood Development Plan (NDP) pursuant to the Community Redevelopment Act of 1969. Chap…
-
Katz v. Dade Cnty., 367 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…at such a reasonable necessity existed. City of Jacksonville v. Griffin, 346 So. 2d 988 (Fla.1977); Dade County v. Oolite Rock Co., 311 So. 2d 699, 701, n.2 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), cert. denied, 330 So. 2d 20 (Fla.1976); Griffin v. City of Jacksonville, 299 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974), cert. denied, 304 So. 2d 125 (Fla.1974). At the hearing below, however, the county initially did nothing more than introduce the authorizing resolution of the commission with its attachments, and rest.2 The landowner then presen…
-
City OF Miami v. Plato COX, 313 So. 2d 443 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)…159 Fla. 311, 31 So. 2d 483, 487. The resolutions of the condemning authority reciting its findings for the need of the land, does not constitute proof of necessity. Ball v. City of Tallahassee, supra; Griffin v. City of Jacksonville, Fla.App.1974, 299 So. 2d 90, 91. The trial court’s determination on the issue of necessity arrives in this court clothed with a presumption of correctness. Palm Beach County v. Inlet Bay Club, Inc., Fla. App.1973, 280 So. 2d 692. Having reviewed the record in the context of t…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ball v. City OF Tallahassee, 281 So. 2d 333 (Fla. 1973)