Hill v. Marion County, L--264
Citation | 238 So.2d 163 |
Decision Date | 30 July 1970 |
Docket Number | No. L--264,L--264 |
Parties | John E. HILL and his wife, Hilda D. Hill, Appellants, v. MARION COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, Appellee. |
Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
Milbrath & Walkup, Ocala, for appellants.
Willard Ayres, Ocala, for appellee.
The defendants-landowners in an eminent domain action have appealed from a final judgment entered by the Circuit Court of Marion County, based upon a jury verdict.
The basic question presented for our determination in this appeal is whether the said court erred in excluding from the jury evidence proffered by the defendants to show the damages to the remainder of their property by an appraisal based on the method known as the 'cost to cure.'
This issue as to the amount of severance damages to the defendants' improvements located on their lands adjoining the defendants' lands directly taken in these condemnation proceedings for a highway right of way, was raised in a paragraph in their answer to the appellee's petition in condemnation, as follows: 'In order for these Defendants to enjoy reasonably their remaining lands to the same extent as before the taking, these Defendants will be required or compelled to: relocate their house, garage, cooler room; demolish the 6 12 CB pump house and laundry room; re-arrange the existing water system; construct a new concrete drive and walkway; plant a new lawn in front of the re-located residence; and replace and transplant flowers and shrubbery all at a cost in excess of $7,500.00.'
The only testimony presented by the petitioner at the trial was that of one Manuel Cepeda, who testified that the defendants' residene had been damaged to the extent of $4,725, and that he had arrived at that figure by using a table that he had worked up over the years, which he referred to as a 'proximity damage table.' He testified that this opinion was not based on any comparable sales but solely upon the application of his said table.
The defendant wife testified that their residence had lost all value as a home because of the proximity of the new right of way; that the situation could be remedied by moving her home and putting it back in the same condition as it was prior to the taking; and that, unless this was done, her home would be devalued, in her opinion, by at least $10,000.
The defendants' expert, E. Henry Martin, testified that he used two approaches in making his appraisal of the property--the cost to cure approach and the cost approach; that, in his opinion, using the cost approach, the defendants' house, by virtue of the taking, was depreciated to the extent of $7,122.
The defendants' attorney then proffered the testimony of the said Martin ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gregg v. U.S. Industries, Inc., s. 88-3056
...1524, 1526 (11th Cir.1988); Neff v. Kehoe, 708 F.2d 639, 644 (11th Cir.1983); J & H Auto Trim, 677 F.2d at 1369; Hill v. Marion County, 238 So.2d 163, 166 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970). In addition, an officer of a corporation may testify to the value of the property "if the officer is qualified by v......
-
Volusia County v. Niles, 83-502
...time and was irreplaceable. The first assumption was untrue, the second unsupported by any evidence at trial. Cf. Hill v. Marion County, 238 So.2d 163 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970). The County attempted to call the chief building official of the City of Daytona Beach, Joseph T. Holland, III, as a wit......
-
Hessen for Use and Benefit of Allstate Ins. Co. v. Jaguar Cars, Inc.
...708 F.2d 639, 644 (11th Cir.1983); see Trailer Ranch, Inc. v. Levine, 523 So.2d 629, 632 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); Hill v. Marion County, 238 So.2d 163, 166 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970). This in effect is what Arnold Hessen did in confirming that "all in all," he felt that he had been treated "fairly" wi......
-
Federal Home Loan Mortg. Corp. v. Molko, s. 91-668
...Corp. v. Ablanedo, 476 So.2d 692 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985), quashed in part on other grounds, 511 So.2d 536 (Fla.1987); Hill v. Marion County, 238 So.2d 163 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970); Harbond, Inc. v. Anderson, 134 So.2d 816 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961). This testimony, which the trial court accepted, places the......
-
Measure of damages in property loss cases.
...("The rule has been established in Florida that an owner may testify as to the value of property which he owns."); Hill v. Marion County, 238 So. 2d 163 (Fla. 1st D.C.A. 1970); Harbond, Inc. v. Anderson, 134 So. 2d 816 (Fla. 2d D.C.A. 1961); Salvage & Surplus, Inc. v. Weintraub, 131 So.......