JOHN E. JAMESSON, D/B/A STAG & DOE COCKTAIL LOUNGE AND PACKAGE STORE AND ABBESS ENTERPRISES, INC., D/B/A THE LEMON TREE RESTAURANT, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS,
v.
DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE, A PUBLIC CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, AND REISS REALTY COMPANY, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-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.
This case addresses whether business damages and lost profits must be compensated when real property is completely taken through condemnation. The Florida Supreme Court held that business damages are not constitutionally required compensation under the Florida Constitution's takings clause, but rather a matter of legislative grace.
Business damages and lost profits are not elements of constitutionally required compensation under the Florida Constitution's takings clause. The right to business damages is a matter of legislative grace, not constitutional imperative, and the legislature has chosen not to allow such damages when all condemned property has been taken and the owner fully compensated.
[1] Business damages or loss of profits of lessees are not elements of damage under the Florida Constitution or statutes where there is a complete taking of real property and…
[2] The right to business damages in eminent domain proceedings is a matter of legislative grace, not constitutional imperative.
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“No private property shall be taken except for a public purpose and with full compensation therefor”
The constitutional takings clause invoked by appellants as requiring compensation for business damages
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Downtown Development Authority initiated a condemnation proceeding to acquire parcels in downtown Fort Lauderdale. Appellants Jamesson and Abbess …
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 Loss Of Profits cases and more on FLexlaw
ENGLAND, Justice.
This case is here on direct appeal from an order of the Broward County Circuit Court which initially and directly construed Article X, § 6 of the Florida Constitution (1968). We have jurisdiction to review that court’s decision pursuant to Article V, § 3(b)(1) of the Florida Constitution (1972). Appellee initiated a condemnation proceeding in order to acquire certain parcels of real property in downtown Fort Lauder-dale. Appellants each held a leasehold interest in a building located in the affected area claiming that they derived a profit from the respective businesses which they operated in those leased facilities. Appellants moved the trial court for permission to submit evidence of “business damages” which would result from the condemnation. Their motion was denied. Subsequently, the trial court incorporated that denial into a final judgment which held that where there is a complete taking of real property and resulting payment to the owner, the business damages or loss of profits of lessees and sub-lessees are not elements of damage under the constitution or the Florida condemnation statutes.
The Florida Constitution (1968) provides that “No private property shall be taken except for a public purpose and with full compensation therefor . . . ,”1 Appellants argue that this provision of the constitution requires compensation for their business damages. We disagree.
The right to business damages is a matter of legislative grace, not constitutional imperative.2 Lost profits and business damages are intangibles which generally do not constitute “property” in the constitutional sense. Backus v. Fort Street Union Depot Co., 169 U.S. 557, 18 S.Ct. 445, 42 L.Ed. 853 (1898). The Florida legislature has chosen not to allow business damages in cases where all of the condemned property has been taken and the owner has been awarded full compensation.3 We adhere to the principle previously expressed on the same issue under the “just compensation” clause of the predecessor constitution.4
The order of the trial court is affirmed.
ADKINS, C. J., ROBERTS, OVER-TON and DREW (Retired), JJ„ and HENSLEY and MELVIN, Circuit Judges, concur. . Fla.Const. art. X, § 6 (1968).
. State Road Dep’t v. Abel Inv. Co., 165 So. 2d 832 (2d Dist.Ct.App.Fla.), cert. denied, 169 So. 2d 485 (Fla.1964). This is the predominant view in the United States. See 4, Nichols, Eminent Domain § 13.3.
. Section 73.071(3) (b), Fla.Stat., provides that business damages are allowable when less than an entire property has been condemned, but only if the taking may damage or destroy a business more than five years old which is located on lands adjoining the property taken. Appellants claim that the present “full compensation” clause incorporates both the “full compensation” and the “just compensation” clauses of the 1885 Constitution (Section 29 of Article XVI and Section 12 of the Bill of Rights, respectively). The suggestion is made that Section 73.071, Fla.Stat., antedates the constitutional change, leaving an unreasonable classification in the statutes which is at odds with the 1968 Constitution. If the legislation is constitutionally infirm, however, we could only invalidate the allowance of those business damages now allowable by law, an action that would not benefit appellants since their claim is predicated on the constitutional meaning of “full” compensation rather than any statutory prescription.
. State Road Dep’t v. Bramlett, 189 So. 2d 481 (Fla.1966). See also Intercoastal Drydock, Inc. v. State Road Dep’t, 203 So. 2d 19 (3d Dist.Ct.App.Fla.1967), cert. denied, 210 So. 2d 223 (Fla.1968).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (18 total)
-
Tampa-Hillsborough Cnty. Expressway Auth. v. K.E. Morris Alignment Serv., Inc., 444 So. 2d 926 (Fla. 1983)…The payment of compensation for intangible losses and incidental or consequential damages, however, is not required by the constitution, but is granted or withheld simply as a matter of legislative grace. Jamesson v. Downtown Development Authority, 322 So. 2d 510 (Fla.1975). Business damages such as those sustained in the instant case fall in the category where compensation is not constitutionally required but depends on legislative authorization. City of Tampa v. Texas Co., 107 So. 2d 216 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958)…
-
Behm v. Division OF Administration, 383 So. 2d 216 (Fla. 1980)…legislative grace, not constitutional imperative. Lost profits and business damages are intangibles which generally do not constitute “property” in the constitutional sense. Jamesson v. Downtown Development Authority of the City of Fort Lauderdale, 322 So. 2d 510 (Fla.1975). Interest is not payable by the state on business damages. Department of Transportation v. Pink Pussy Cat, Inc., et al., 314 So. 2d 192 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975.) The opinion of this Court is amended to direct the trial judge to enter judgment…
-
Dep't of Agric. & Consumer Servs. v. Mid-Florida Growers, Inc., 570 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 1990)…ctly stated: The claim for lost production is a claim for consequential, business damages. It is well established that “the right to business damages is a matter of legislative grace, not constitutional imperative.” Jamesson v. Downtown Dev. Auth., 322 So. 2d 510 (Fla.1975). See also State, Dep’t of Transp. v. Fortune Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 532 So. 2d 1267 (Fla.1988); Texaco, Inc. v. Dep’t of Transp., 537 So. 2d 92 (Fla.1989). The legislature has not graced these nursery owners with a statute authorizing bu…
Previewing 3 of 18 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Backus v. Fort St. Union Depot Co., 169 U.S. 557 (U.S. 1898)
- In re THE Florida BAR, 189 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 1966)
- State Rd. Dep't of Fla. v. Abel Inv. Co., 165 So. 2d 832 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)
- Betram C. Ellison and Joline M. Ellison v. State Rd. Dep't of Fla., 169 So. 2d 485 (Fla. 1964)
- Jackson v. State, 210 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 1968)
- Henry v. State, 210 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 1968)
- Vogal Milam v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 203 So. 2d 19 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)