DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATION, ETC v. Ely
This text of 351 So. 2d 66 (DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATION, ETC v. Ely) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATION, State of Florida DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Appellant,
v.
Margaret ELY et al., Appellees.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
*67 Alan E. De Serio and H. Reynolds Sampson, Tallahassee, for appellant.
John R. Farrell, Reiseman, Buchbinder & Elegant and Ira M. Elegant, Miami, for appellees.
Before PEARSON, NATHAN and HUBBART, JJ.
HUBBART, Judge.
By this appeal, we are asked to review a final judgment in an eminent domain proceeding. The condemning authority [Division of Administration, State of Florida, Department of Transportation] appeals and contends that the compensation award is improper. We agree and reverse for a new trial.
Condemnation proceedings were instituted in this cause by the Florida Department of Transportation who sought to appropriate a parcel of land in Dade County for the purpose of completing the Homestead Extension of the Florida Turnpike. The condemned parcel was part of a mobile home park owned by two people who have since been given compensation for the loss of their land. The appellee, Southeastern Propane Gas Co., had a service and easement agreement with the owners of the mobile home park to supply liquefied petroleum gas to the home trailers in the park.[1]
*68 Pursuant to this agreement, Southeastern Propane Gas Co. installed underground gas lines and other appropriate equipment for the purpose of serving the twelve trailer sites on the condemned parcel as well as the other trailer sites which were not condemned in the rest of the mobile home park. The condemnation in this case frustrates the contract to provide liquefied petroleum gas service to the twelve trailer sites on the condemned parcel. It is undisputed that Southeastern Propane Gas Co. has lost its underground gas lines and must incur a cost to remove any salvagable items on the condemned parcel. The condemnation judgment appealed from is based on a jury verdict rendered after trial. The judgment awards Southeastern Propane Gas Co. $4,157.63 as compensation for the value of the property appropriated and consequent business damages suffered as authorized under Sections 73.071(3)(a), (b), Florida Statutes (1975).[2]
The law is clear that a service and easement agreement held by a private company to provide water and sewer service to the owners of land creates no property right which is compensable upon condemnation of the land or the right-of-way on the land to which such agreement relates. Such a service and easement agreement creates an easement in gross personal to the company and not appurtenant because the easement is unsupported by another dominant *69 estate held by the company which the easement benefited. And the incidental frustration of the performance of such service and easement agreement by the condemnation of the land serviced by the agreement is equally non-compensable in an eminent domain proceeding. As to such an appropriation, the only compensation to which such private company is entitled is the value of its lost trade fixtures located on the condemned land as well as the cost of removing other trade fixtures which are salvagable from such land. North Dade Water Co. v. Florida State Turnpike Authority, 114 So.2d 458, 460-61 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959); Rose v. State, 24 N.Y.2d 80, 298 N.Y.S.2d 968, 246 N.E.2d 735 (1969); United States v. Certain Property, 344 F.2d 142, 145 (2d Cir.1965). See also Pensacola Scrap Processors, Inc. v. State Road Department, 188 So.2d 38 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966).
Damages to a business located on land appropriated in an eminent domain proceeding do not constitute part of the constitutionally protected right of just compensation for the public taking of private land and are only compensable if allowed by statute. State Road Department v. Bramlett, 189 So.2d 481 (Fla. 1966); State Road Department v. Abel Investment Co., 165 So.2d 832 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964). Where less than the entire property is sought to be appropriated, any reasonable damages to an established business located on adjoining land not appropriated are compensable by statute providing: (1) the business is owned by the party whose land is being taken, and (2) the business has been on the adjoining property for more than five years. State Road Department v. Bramlett, 189 So.2d 481 (Fla. 1966); Section 73.071(3)(b), Florida Statutes (1975).
The above rules apply with equal force to a service and easement agreement held by a private company to supply liquefied petroleum gas to the owners of land such as the service and easement agreement involved in the instant case. This agreement created solely an easement in gross personal to Southeastern Propane Gas Co. because it did not serve another dominant estate held by the company. Such easements in gross are not compensable in an eminent domain proceeding, and, consequently, Southeastern Propane Gas Co. is not entitled to compensation for the loss of a property interest in the condemned land.
Business damages under Section 73.071(3)(b), Florida Statutes (1975) are equally inapplicable in the instant case. Southeastern Propane Gas Co. did not own or have any property interest in the condemned land as required by the statute in order to qualify for business damages. Moreover, its business had not been operating on the adjoining land for more than five years as further required by the statute. The fact that Southeastern Propane Gas Co. as a company has been incorporated and doing business elsewhere throughout the state since the early 1950's does not satisfy this five year requirement under the statute.
The Florida Department of Transportation concedes, however, that Southeastern Propane Gas Co. is entitled under the above-stated principles of law to the value of its lost gas installation fixtures and the cost of removing its salvagable items of property such as meters located on the condemned parcel. We, therefore, reverse the award made in this case and remand the cause for a new trial for a determination of the such allowable compensation.
Reversed and remanded for a new trial.
NOTES
[1] The service and easement agreement contains the following pertinent provisions:
"2. That Buyer [Cove Mobile Home Park] for itself, its successors and assigns, does herewith give unto the said Seller, [Southeastern Propane Gas Co.] their heirs, successors and assigns, for the time limit hereinafter set forth, the sole and exclusive easement rights to install and maintain the complete gas system which is to be located upon the aforementioned real property:
To have and to hold the aforesaid exclusive easement rights for a period of fifteen (15) years from date of this Agreement.
3. Seller agrees to comply with all applicable State and County regulations, and agrees to comply with all safety measures required of it by such authorities.
4. Seller agrees:
(a) to install at a location or locations mutually agreeable to Seller and Buyer LP-Gas storage tanks of sufficient capacity to provide uninterrupted service to the aforementioned mobile home sites;
(b) to install underground gas lines, pipes individually to each mobile home site constructed on the aforementioned property, and connected by meter to the gas source; and
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
351 So. 2d 66, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/division-of-administration-etc-v-ely-fladistctapp-1977.