Kirkpatrick v. City of Jacksonville ex rel. Department of Housing & Urban Development

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Kirkpatrick v. City of Jacksonville ex rel. Department of Housing & Urban Development

352 So. 2d 545, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 17096

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 23, 1977

DocketNo. EE-97

StatusPublished

This text of 352 So. 2d 545 (Kirkpatrick v. City of Jacksonville ex rel. Department of Housing & Urban Development) 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

Kirkpatrick v. City of Jacksonville ex rel. Department of Housing & Urban Development, 352 So. 2d 545, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 17096 (Fla. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

The Kirkpatricks appeal a final judgment entered in their favor following an inverse condemnation action by them against the City. They raise several points, only one of which warrants special consideration, pertaining to the lower court's alleged error by refusing to allow them to introduce into evidence the assessed value of their property for tax purposes to rebut the City’s expert testimony as to its value, relying upon Trad v. City of Jacksonville, 279 So.2d 384 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973), which held tax assessments are admissible into evidence as admissions against interest of the condemning authority. We do not consider the point well taken. Trad dealt with a total taking so that the property assessment was relevant in considering the value of the entire parcel, including both land and improvements. Here the jury had for its consideration only the value of improvements, and the tax assessment was not broken down as to the value of both the land and the buildings.

Additionally we do not have before us the transcription of the trial proceedings. The only transcript included within the record pertains to the hearing following trial as to the amount of attorney fees to be awarded. Consequently we have no way of discovering from the record the specific reason why the trial court disallowed the proffered exhibit. It has been held in countless cases that an appellant may not present an error for appellate consideration on an incomplete record if the omitted matter might affect the determination of the error [546]*546by the reviewing court. E. g., Hodge v. State, 29 Fla. 500,10 So. 556 (1892); Albritton v. State, 54 Fla. 6, 44 So. 745 (1907); Nelson v. State, 85 So.2d 832 (Fla.1956).

AFFIRMED.

MILLS and ERVIN, JJ., concur. BOYER, Acting C. J., concurring specially-

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

PER CURIAM.

The Kirkpatricks appeal a final judgment entered in their favor following an inverse condemnation action by them against the City. They raise several points, only one of which warrants special consideration, pertaining to the lower court's alleged error by refusing to allow them to introduce into evidence the assessed value of their property for tax purposes to rebut the City’s expert testimony as to its value, relying upon Trad v. City of Jacksonville, 279 So.2d 384 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973), which held tax assessments are admissible into evidence as admissions against interest of the condemning authority. We do not consider the point well taken. Trad dealt with a total taking so that the property assessment was relevant in considering the value of the entire parcel, including both land and improvements. Here the jury had for its consideration only the value of improvements, and the tax assessment was not broken down as to the value of both the land and the buildings.

Additionally we do not have before us the transcription of the trial proceedings. The only transcript included within the record pertains to the hearing following trial as to the amount of attorney fees to be awarded. Consequently we have no way of discovering from the record the specific reason why the trial court disallowed the proffered exhibit. It has been held in countless cases that an appellant may not present an error for appellate consideration on an incomplete record if the omitted matter might affect the determination of the error [546]*546by the reviewing court. E. g., Hodge v. State, 29 Fla. 500,10 So. 556 (1892); Albritton v. State, 54 Fla. 6, 44 So. 745 (1907); Nelson v. State, 85 So.2d 832 (Fla.1956).

AFFIRMED.

MILLS and ERVIN, JJ., concur. BOYER, Acting C. J., concurring specially-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

352 So. 2d 545, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 17096, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kirkpatrick-v-city-of-jacksonville-ex-rel-department-of-housing-urban-fladistctapp-1977.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack