General Development Utilities, Inc. v. Charlotte County, 92-02206
Decision Date | 28 May 1993 |
Docket Number | No. 92-02206,92-02206 |
Citation | 620 So.2d 1035 |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Parties | 18 Fla. L. Week. D1353 GENERAL DEVELOPMENT UTILITIES, INC.; General Development Corporation; Barclay's Bank PLC; Bankamerica Trust Company, N.A.; Security Pacific National Bank; Chemical Bank; Irving Trust Company and Victor Desguin, Charlotte County Tax Collector, Appellants, v. CHARLOTTE COUNTY, FLORIDA, Appellee. |
Toby Prince Brigham of Brigham, Moore, Gaylord, Wilson, Ulmer, Schuster & Sachs, and Arthur J. England, Jr. of Greenberg, Traurig, Hoffman, Lipoff, Rosen & Quentel, P.A., and Linda A. Wells of Fine, Jacobson, Schwartz, Nash & Block, Miami, for appellants.
B. Kenneth Gatlin, Thomas F. Woods and Robert J. Pierson of Gatlin, Woods, Carlson and Cowdery, Tallahassee, for Amicus Curiae Florida Waterworks Ass'n.
Nancy A. Copperthwaite of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Miami, and Thomas P. Gadsden, Of Counsel of Morgan Lewis & Bockius, Philadelphia, for Amicus Curiae Nat. Ass'n of Water Companies.
Phillip Gildan of Nason, Gildan, Yeager, Gerson & White, P.A., and Larry Klein of Jane Kreusler-Walsh, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellee.
Appellants, General Development Utilities, Inc. (G.D.U.) and General Development Corporation (G.D.C.), appeal the nonfinal order arising out of an eminent domain proceeding that limited the amount of compensation to be paid G.D.U. by appellee, Charlotte County, Florida (Charlotte County), for its condemnation of G.D.U.'s utility system (water, sewer and L.P. gas). We reverse.
The order on appeal excluded all properties acquired by G.D.U. as so-called Contributions in Aid of Construction (C.I.A.C. or "contributed property") from the determination of the amount of compensation G.D.U. was to be paid as full and fair compensation for its condemned properties to be acquired by Charlotte County. Such a ruling is directly contrary to the only clear supreme court ruling in this regard. See Dade County v. Gen. Waterworks Corp., 267 So.2d 633 (Fla.1972). General Waterworks is specifically on point, and we are bound to follow its precedent. See Hoffman v. Jones, 280 So.2d 431 (Fla.1973).
In an attempt to distinguish General Waterworks, Charlotte County relies upon such cases as Sarasota County v. Tamaron Utils., Inc., 429 So.2d 322 (Fla.2d DCA 1983), quashed and remanded, 460 So.2d 347 (Fla.1984); Village of North Palm Beach v. Mason, 188 So.2d 778 (Fla.1966); City of Plantation v. Mason, 170 So.2d 441 (Fla.1964); and Florida Cities Water Co. v. Board of County Commissioners of Sarasota County, 334 So.2d 622, 625 (Fla.2d DCA), app. dismissed, 341 So.2d 1081 (Fla.1976)....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
WSSC v. Utilities
... ... UTILITIES, INC. OF MARYLAND ... No. 116, September Term, ... General of Maryland, Robert A. Zarnoch, Assistant ... of 1,200 residences in Prince George's County lying east of U.S. 301, approximately 1.6 miles ... Marlboro Meadows was under development in 1965. The developer was Hylton Enterprises, ... Utilities, Inc. v. Charlotte County, 620 So.2d 1035 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1993) ... ...
-
Washington Suburban Sanitary Comm'n v. Utilities Inc.
... ... Circuit Court for Prince George's County" ... Case No. CAL97-17811 ... \xC2" ... Marlboro Meadows was under development in 1965. The developer was Hylton Enterprises, Inc., a ... general water supply or sewerage system to a municipally or ... Utilities, Inc. v. Charlotte County, 620 So. 2d 1035 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993) ... ...
-
General Development Utilities, Inc. v. St. Lucie County, 93-1875
... ... General Waterworks Corp., 267 So.2d 633 (Fla.1972), and General Development Utilities, Inc. v. Charlotte County, 620 So.2d 1035 (Fla. 2d DCA), rev. denied, 630 So.2d 1098 ... ...
- Charlotte County v. General Development Utilities, Inc.