Peebles v. Canal Authority, N--335

• Decision Date: 02 November 1971
• Docket Number: No. N--335,N--335
• Citation: 254 So.2d 232
• Parties: J. R. PEEBLES, Jr. and his wife, Frances H. Peebles, Appellants, v. The CANAL AUTHORITY of the State of Florida, a body corporate under the laws of the State of Florida, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 232

254 So.2d 232

J. R. PEEBLES, Jr. and his wife, Frances H. Peebles, Appellants, v. The CANAL AUTHORITY of the State of Florida, a body corporate under the laws of the State of Florida, Appellee.

No. N--335.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Nov. 2, 1971.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 29, 1971.

Green, Simmons & Green, Ocala, for appellants.

Docker, Elliott & Kaler, Jacksonville, for appellee.

JOHNSON, Judge.

This is an appeal from a final judgment in an eminent domain proceeding in which appellants, the condemnees, were awarded, pursuant to jury verdict, the sum of $27,200.00 for land taken by appellee.

Appellee filed eminent domain proceedings against numerous parties for the taking of land to be used for the Eureka Reservoir. At the trial of this cause, it was established that appellants owned an L-shaped tract of land totalling approximately 117 acres, of which 60.37 acres were taken by appellee. Said sixty acres had a total frontage on the Oklawaha River of about 1,700 feet. Two appraisers testified as to the value of the parcel owned by appellants.

Appellants' appraiser opined that just compensation to appellants was $47,250.00. This figure was based upon a market value of $550.00 per acre for the 60.37 acres taken ($33,000.00) and severance damages of $250.00 per acre for the remaining 57 acres ($14,250.00). The severance damages to the remainder resulted from the fact that after the taking, appellants' parcel would simply be flatwoods pine land, with no waterfront access.

The appellee's appraiser, Levie D. Smith, felt there would be no severance damage to the remaining land of appellants because, while the property fronted on the Oklawaha River before the taking, the remaining property would front on the Eureka Pool after the taking. Smith's appraisal of just compensation was $27,200.00, $450.00 per acre for the 60.37 acres taken.

During the course of these proceedings by appellee, the trial court ruled that appellee would not be permitted to introduce evidence with respect to its proposed policy of allowing limited access across the 300 foot collar of land included within the taking and fronting on the Eureka Reservoir. As the petition, declaration of taking and order of taking were all absolute in their terms, vesting in appellee fee simple title, the appellee could not base its appraisal upon a policy of allowing access to the pool, as such access would be conditioned upon the benevolence of appellee.

Nevertheless, appellee's appraiser Smith testified that when he made his original appraisal on appellants' parcel, it was based in part upon the assumption that there would be limited access by appellants across the 300 foot collar leading to the pool. This assumption continued up to the time of trial. After the trial court's ruling that an appraisal based upon access to the pool would...