CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, A FLORIDA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
PLATO COX 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 Miami appealed a trial court judgment denying its eminent domain action to acquire property for a public park. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the city failed to prove public necessity for the taking, and that municipal resolutions alone cannot satisfy the burden of proof required in eminent domain proceedings.
The city failed to prove public necessity for the taking. A condemning authority must come forward with actual proof of public purpose and reasonable necessity for the taking; mere municipal resolutions reciting findings of need do not constitute proof of necessity, and strong public desire is insufficient—there must be public necessity.
[1] The necessity for the exercise of eminent domain is a judicial issue of fact and law for the courts.
[2] Where the issue of necessity for a taking is raised in an eminent domain action, the condemning authority bears the burden of proving public purpose and reasonable necess…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“The necessity for the exercise of the eminent domain power is ultimately a judicial issue of fact and law for the courts.”
Establishes that necessity is a judicial determination, not determined by the condemning authority's assertions alone.
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 Miami sought to acquire parcels of property owned by Cox, Du Puch, and Kreidt, and leased to Riverside Boats, Inc. and Ribas Commercial Co…
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 Eminent Domain Action cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The City of Miami, plaintiff, appeals from a final judgment entered in favor of the defendant landowners and tenants on the issue of public necessity for the taking of their property in an action for eminent domain.
The City of Miami filed a complaint in circuit court seeking to acquire certain parcels of property by virtue of its eminent domain authority, alleging that the property was necessary for a public park and recreational facility. Defendants Cox, Du Puch and Kreidt, the owners, and defendants, Riverside Boats, Inc. and Ribas Commercial Corp., the tenants, filed answers denying necessity for the taking. Following a non jury hearing, the trial court held that the City of Miami failed to show public necessity, and entered a final judgment in favor of the defendants, reciting its conclusion that “. . . the City of Miami is premature in its desire to place a public park in this area and that there is, therefore, no public necessity at this time for the proposed park.”
From this judgment, the City of Miami appeals, contending that necessity was proved and that the court abused its discretion in holding that the taking was “premature.” The defendants contend that since the issue of necessity for the taking was raised, the burden of proof was on the City to show proof of necessity and that a mere resolution does not raise the presumption of necessity.1 We agree.
The necessity for the exercise of the eminent domain power is ultimately a judicial issue of fact and law for the courts. City of Lakeland v. Bunch, Fla., 1974, 293 So. 2d 66. The defendant landowners and tenants do not enter a court of law with the burden of proof. Where the issue of necessity is raised, the condemning authority must initially come forward with proof that there is a public purpose for the taking and a reasonable necessity that the land in question be taken for the contemplated use. Wilton v. St. Johns County, 1929, 98 Fla. 26, 123 So. 527; Ball v. City of Tallahassee, Fla., 1973, 281 So. 2d 333, 336; City of Lakeland v. Bunch, supra, 293 So. 2d page 69. Strong public demand or desire is not sufficient; there must be public necessity. Peavy-Wilson Lumber Company v. Brevard County, 1947, 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 the foregoing rules of law, and having found no error requiring reversal, the judgment on appeal is, therefore, affirmed.
. Compare § 127.01(2), Fla.Stat.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Katz v. Dade Cnty., 367 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…ty of Jacksonville v. Griffin, 346 So. 2d 988, 989 (Fla. 1977). . This was clearly insufficient to sustain the county’s burden, Canal Authority v. Miller, 243 So. 2d 131, 135 (Fla.1970); City of Jacksonville v. Griffin, supra; City of Miami v. Cox, 313 So. 2d 443, 444 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), cert. denied, 330 So. 2d 15 (Fla.1976). . Mr. Adams stated that an additional purpose was “to provide some senior citizens public housing.” . See City of Jacksonville v. Moman, 290 So. 2d 105 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974), cert. den…
Authorities Cited
- Wilton v. Cnty. of St. Johns, 98 Fla. 26 (Fla. 1928)
- Peavy-Wilson Lumber Co., Inc. v. Cnty. OF Brevard, 159 Fla. 311 (Fla. 1947)
- Ball v. City OF Tallahassee, 281 So. 2d 333 (Fla. 1973)
- City OF Lakeland v. Bunch, 293 So. 2d 66 (Fla. 1974)
- Griffin v. City OF Jacksonville, 299 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)
- Palm Beach Cnty. v. Inlet BAY Club, Inc., 280 So. 2d 692 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)