Adams v. Dade County

• Decision Date: 18 May 1976
• Docket Number: No. 75--608,75--608
• Parties: Claude D. ADAMS et al., Appellants, v. The COUNTY OF DADE, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 594

335 So.2d 594

Claude D. ADAMS et al., Appellants, v. The COUNTY OF DADE, Appellee.

No. 75--608.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 18, 1976.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 10, 1976.

Ellis Rubin, Miami, for appellants.

Stuart Simon, County Atty., and William W. Gibbs, Asst. County Atty., Miami, for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, C.J., and HENDRY and HAVERFIELD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiffs, homeowners in Miami's Grapeland Heights area, seek reversal of that portion of a final judgment denying their claim for more than seven million dollars in damages against Dade County for excessive flight noise from neighboring Miami International Airport in this inverse condemnation action. Defendant Dade County cross-appeals those provisions of the judgment ordering it to implement the recommendations of the Miami International Airport Compatibility Study for noise reduction, and retaining jurisdiction to possibly award plaintiffs damages in the future.

On January 17, 1972 plaintiffs filed a complaint for inverse condemnation against Dade County and sought damages for an alleged taking of air navigational (avigational) easements over and near their respective properties by the County as owner and operator or Miami International Airport. In essence the complaint alleged that their properties are located from 1/2 to 2 miles from the eastern edge of two of the three runways and as a result of the operation of jet aircraft at relatively low altitudes in landing and taking off over and near their properties, plaintiffs have been adversely affected. Dade County answered specifically denying that any alleged taking had occurred. At trial testimony of the plaintiffs, engineering and architectural consultants, FHA and HUD supervisors and real estate appraisers was heard. In addition, abundant documentary evidence was introduced including the Miami International Airport Compatibility Study (MIA) for noise reduction. After conclusion of trial, the judge made lengthy findings of fact in which he determined that plaintiffs have been subjected constantly to at least 100 decibels on the relative scale of intensity of sound as well as vibrations, odors, noxious fumes and other exhaust pollutants from low flying jet aircraft. He then held that for plaintiffs to be entitled to relief they must show that the direct and substantial invasion of their property rights is of such magnitude that they are deprived of the practical enjoyment of their property and such invasion results in a definite and measurable diminution of the market value of the property. Concluding that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate such a definite and measurable diminution, the judge denied their claim for damages. Nevertheless, the judge ordered defendant to begin the implementation and effectuation of the MIA Study Standards, and retained jurisdiction to allow plaintiffs at some future date to petition the court for a hearing to determine whether or not substantial diminution of property values has occurred so that damages, if any, may be determined at that time.

Plaintiffs primarily contend that the trial court erred in holding that they were required to prove diminution of property market value in order to obtain relief.

The leading case with respect to avigational...