DOROTHY C. WILKERSON ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATION, STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, 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 a condemnation proceeding for a quick taking, the court held that the condemning authority, not the property owners, bears the burden of proving the land's value. The trial judge's erroneous instruction to the contrary was reversible error requiring a new trial.
The condemning authority bears the burden of proof in condemnation proceedings. Once a property owner presents competent evidence establishing a value for their property, a presumption arises that the property is worth that amount, and the condemning authority must rebut that presumption by a preponderance of the evidence.
[1] In a "quick taking" condemnation proceeding initiated by the condemning authority, the burden of proof to establish the value of the land rests on the condemning authorit…
[2] A landowner has an absolute right to place a value on their property, and presenting competent evidence of that value creates a presumption that the property is worth tha…
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“a landowner has an absolute right to place whatever value he chooses on his own property; and upon his presentation of competent evidence in a condemnation suit tending to establish such value, a presumption arises that the property is in fact worth that much”
Establishes the core holding that property owners have the right to assert property value and that competent evidence creates a presumption in their favor
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe state condemned the appellants' property in a quick taking proceeding. The state presented evidence valuing the land at $171,500, while the proper…
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 Quick Taking cases and more on FLexlaw
McNULTY, Chief Judge.
We consider this day the question of who has the burden of proof to establish value of land in a “quick taking” condemnation proceeding begun by the condemning authority. The trial judge charged the jury herein that such burden rests on the property owners. Our Supreme Court recently held to the contrary, however, in City of Fort Lauderdale v. Casino Realty, Inc. which, in fairness to the trial judge here, we point out was decided subsequent to the trial herein. We must hold, there fore, that it was error for the trial judge to have imposed the burden of proof as to the land value on the owners.
We discuss briefly, now, the reason why we think such error was prejudicial and thus reversible. The state’s evidence tended to establish that the value of appellants’ parcel was $171,500. Appellants’ evidence tended to establish that the land was worth $268,000.
The jury’s verdict was for $175,000 and judgment was entered in this sum. At first blush, therefore, it may appear that we could not say as a matter of law that the jury verdict might have been higher had the court properly charged the jury. This would be so because, ordinarily, a verdict for a plaintiff cannot exceed that established by his evidence. Here, of course, the verdict did exceed it in the sum of $3,500; and it seems logical that the only basis for such additional amount would have to be found in the evidence presented by the landowners. Certainly, it would seem, appellants could fare no better on a retrial because the state isn’t going to establish their value for them.
But condemnation proceedings are sui generis and cannot be, in all respects, classed with the ordinary law suit. The only reasonable interpretation of the rationale in Casino Realty, supra, therefore, and we believe it indeed to be a sound rationale, is that, within the concept of eminent domain proceedings, a landowner has an absolute right to place whatever value he chooses on his own property; and upon his presentation of competent evidence in a condemnation suit tending to establish such value, a presumption arises that the property is in fact worth that much.
Accordingly, the burden is upon the condemning authority to rebut that presumption and to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the property is worth something less. Its failure to do so would authorize a verdict to the full extent of the value established by the landowner. The state wasn’t charged with that burden here and it should have been.
In view whereof, the judgment appealed from should be, and the same is hereby, reversed; and the cause is remanded for a new trial.
HOBSON and BOARDMAN, JJ., concur. . (Fla.1975), 313 So. 2d 649.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Foster v. City OF Gainesville, 579 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…ght to place whatever value he chooses on his own property, and upon presenting competent evidence tending to establish such a value, a presumption arises that the property is in fact worth that amount. Wilkerson v. Division of Administration, etc., 319 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975). See also 24 Fla.Jur.2d Evidence and Witnesses § 659 (1981) (“Ordinarily, an owner, by reason of ownership, is qualified to testify to the value of his own property.”); Annot., 22 ALR4th 863, 872 (1983) (“The'extent of the interfe…
-
Cnty. OF Sarasota v. Selva L. Burdette, 479 So. 2d 763 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)…foot. Although the jury would have been authorized to return a verdict for $27,300 because the county did not present admissible testimony to refute the owner’s value, see Wilkerson v. Division of Administration, State Department of Transportation, 319 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975), the jury was not required to return a verdict for that amount. The jury could have rendered a verdict for an amount less than the maximum submitted by the landowner, as it is within the jury’s province to determine the weight and…
-
Fla. Dep't of Agric. & Consumer Servs. v. Mahon, 293 So. 3d 1091 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020)…ndemning authority bears the initial responsibility to go forward with evidence necessary to establish what land was taken, how it is being taken, and the value of the land actually taken); accord Wilkerson v. Div. of Admin., State Dep't of Transp., 319 So. 2d 585, 585 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975) (holding that the condemning authority has the burden of proof to establish the value of land in a condemnation proceeding (citing Casino Realty, 313 So. 2d at 652)). Thus, Mahon reasoned that the Department’s motion to allo…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- City OF Fort Lauderdale v. Casino Realty, Inc., 313 So. 2d 649 (Fla. 1975)