State, Department of Transportation v. Ansbacher

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State, Department of Transportation v. Ansbacher

672 So. 2d 660, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 4411, 1996 WL 218187

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 2, 1996

DocketNo. 93-3516

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 672 So. 2d 660 (State, Department of Transportation v. Ansbacher) 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

State, Department of Transportation v. Ansbacher, 672 So. 2d 660, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 4411, 1996 WL 218187 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

MICKLE, Judge.

The Department of Transportation (DOT) challenges the jury award rendered in this eminent domain proceeding. Of the several claims raised on appeal one compels reversal, to-wit: that evidence of non-eom-pensable damages was erroneously admitted at trial.

This eminent domain proceeding involves the reconstruction of a portion of Southside Boulevard in Jacksonville. Appellees, the owners of condemned parcels, claim a reduction in the value of their property caused by the substantial impairment of access thereto following the closure of certain local roadways intersecting with Southside Boulevard. [661]*661At trial, in support of the claims of the property owners, appraisal testimony and evidence was admitted on the issue of the asserted loss of property value resulting from the impairment of access created by the new construction. Specifically, the extent to which the remaining property is diminished in value by reason of the impairment of access was illustrated by the use of comparable commercial property “paired sales,” that is, a comparison of the value of commercial property with suitable access as compared to the value of comparable property with unsuitable access. We agree with DOT that this evidence was admitted in error. Applying the recent Florida Supreme Court decision in Department of Transportation v. Gefen, 636 So.2d 1345 (Fla.1994), we believe it was improper to include within the assessment of compensation herein any damages for the impact of diminished access as a result of the closure of the subject roads.

As to the proper valuation herein, as we interpret Gefen, when the state takes action that diminishes traffic flow or access to a non-abutting road (for which no compensation is paid), and then later appropriates a parcel of property, the state must pay compensation for the parcel condemned based on the parcel’s value prior to the loss of access or traffic flow. Hence, no compensation is ever paid for the loss of traffic flow or loss of access to a non-abutting road on the remainder of the appropriated property. Id. at 1346.

Because the jury’s verdict herein was tainted with an element of non-compensable damages, we must reverse and remand for a new valuation proceeding. We affirm, without discussion, the remaining issues raised on appeal.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.

VAN NORTWICK, J., concurs. BOOTH, J., dissents with no written opinion.

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

MICKLE, Judge.

The Department of Transportation (DOT) challenges the jury award rendered in this eminent domain proceeding. Of the several claims raised on appeal one compels reversal, to-wit: that evidence of non-eom-pensable damages was erroneously admitted at trial.

This eminent domain proceeding involves the reconstruction of a portion of Southside Boulevard in Jacksonville. Appellees, the owners of condemned parcels, claim a reduction in the value of their property caused by the substantial impairment of access thereto following the closure of certain local roadways intersecting with Southside Boulevard. [661]*661At trial, in support of the claims of the property owners, appraisal testimony and evidence was admitted on the issue of the asserted loss of property value resulting from the impairment of access created by the new construction. Specifically, the extent to which the remaining property is diminished in value by reason of the impairment of access was illustrated by the use of comparable commercial property “paired sales,” that is, a comparison of the value of commercial property with suitable access as compared to the value of comparable property with unsuitable access. We agree with DOT that this evidence was admitted in error. Applying the recent Florida Supreme Court decision in Department of Transportation v. Gefen, 636 So.2d 1345 (Fla.1994), we believe it was improper to include within the assessment of compensation herein any damages for the impact of diminished access as a result of the closure of the subject roads.

As to the proper valuation herein, as we interpret Gefen, when the state takes action that diminishes traffic flow or access to a non-abutting road (for which no compensation is paid), and then later appropriates a parcel of property, the state must pay compensation for the parcel condemned based on the parcel’s value prior to the loss of access or traffic flow. Hence, no compensation is ever paid for the loss of traffic flow or loss of access to a non-abutting road on the remainder of the appropriated property. Id. at 1346.

Because the jury’s verdict herein was tainted with an element of non-compensable damages, we must reverse and remand for a new valuation proceeding. We affirm, without discussion, the remaining issues raised on appeal.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.

VAN NORTWICK, J., concurs. BOOTH, J., dissents with no written opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

672 So. 2d 660, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 4411, 1996 WL 218187, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-department-of-transportation-v-ansbacher-fladistctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack