Division of Administration, State, Department of Transportation v. Ideal Holding Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Division of Administration, State, Department of Transportation v. Ideal Holding Co.

427 So. 2d 392, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 19149

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 9, 1983

DocketNos. 82-887, 82-1111

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 427 So. 2d 392 (Division of Administration, State, Department of Transportation v. Ideal Holding Co.) 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.

Bluebook

Division of Administration, State, Department of Transportation v. Ideal Holding Co., 427 So. 2d 392, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 19149 (Fla. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

HERSEY, Judge.

These are consolidated appeals from a final order and amended final order entered on a counterclaim in condemnation proceedings determining that a portion of land owned by appellee, Ideal Holding Company, had been inversely condemned without just compensation.

We reverse. The issue at trial was whether that portion of a right-of-way being condemned, which exceeded in width a right-of-way previously acquired by the state, inured to the state by virtue alternatively of (a) common-law dedication, (b) proscriptive easement or (c) maintenance pursuant to Section 95.361, Florida Statutes (1981). The evidence establishes that the property had previously been acquired by the state under one or more of these theories.

On the issue of acquisition by maintenance pursuant to the statute, the parties and the trial court became embroiled in determining whether the maintenance performed by the state during the period in question had been “proper” maintenance. The test is not whether the maintenance is proper, or frequent, or thorough, or open and obvious. The test is whether the maintenance was appropriate to the circumstances and, if so, the statutory test is met. The property to be maintained .here consisted of a drainage ditch, so that minimal maintenance was required to permit the ditch to be utilized for draining surface waters from the remainder of the right-of-way. There was competent substantial evidence to support the position of appellant that the property had been acquired by maintenance pursuant to statute.

We therefore reverse and remand for entry of a judgment for appellant.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

HURLEY and WALDEN, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

HERSEY, Judge.

These are consolidated appeals from a final order and amended final order entered on a counterclaim in condemnation proceedings determining that a portion of land owned by appellee, Ideal Holding Company, had been inversely condemned without just compensation.

We reverse. The issue at trial was whether that portion of a right-of-way being condemned, which exceeded in width a right-of-way previously acquired by the state, inured to the state by virtue alternatively of (a) common-law dedication, (b) proscriptive easement or (c) maintenance pursuant to Section 95.361, Florida Statutes (1981). The evidence establishes that the property had previously been acquired by the state under one or more of these theories.

On the issue of acquisition by maintenance pursuant to the statute, the parties and the trial court became embroiled in determining whether the maintenance performed by the state during the period in question had been “proper” maintenance. The test is not whether the maintenance is proper, or frequent, or thorough, or open and obvious. The test is whether the maintenance was appropriate to the circumstances and, if so, the statutory test is met. The property to be maintained .here consisted of a drainage ditch, so that minimal maintenance was required to permit the ditch to be utilized for draining surface waters from the remainder of the right-of-way. There was competent substantial evidence to support the position of appellant that the property had been acquired by maintenance pursuant to statute.

We therefore reverse and remand for entry of a judgment for appellant.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

HURLEY and WALDEN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

427 So. 2d 392, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 19149, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/division-of-administration-state-department-of-transportation-v-ideal-fladistctapp-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack