Sarasota County v. Burdette, 1
| Decision Date | 23 October 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 84-2810,I,No. 1,1,84-2810 |
| Citation | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2417,479 So.2d 763 |
| Parties | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2417 COUNTY OF SARASOTA, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, Appellant, v. Selva L. BURDETTE, Mary A. Burdette, Palm Plaza Associates, Ltd., I.R.E. Real Estate Fund, and Pizza Hut of Gainesvillenc., Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Thomas R. Peppler of Nelson, Hesse, Cyril, Smith, Widman & Herb, Sarasota, for appellant.
David J. Baron of Fergerson, Skipper, Shaw, Keyser, Baron & Tirabassi, P.A., Sarasota, for appellees, Burdette, Palm Plaza, and Pizza Hut of Gainesville No. 1, Inc.
S.W. Moore of Brigham, Moore, Gaylord, Schuster & Sachs, Sarasota, and Alan E. DeSerio, of Brigham, Moore, Gaylord, Schuster & Sachs, Tallahassee, for appellee, I.R.E. Real Estate Fund.
Sarasota County appeals from several judgments entered in a condemnation action and from an order granting a new trial. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
The trial in this case involved valuation of three pieces of property, parcel 2, parcel 22, and parcel 23, for purposes of awarding fair compensation to the respective owners for any loss caused by the county's taking. During the course of the trial the court, for purposes of valuation, divided parcel 23 into parcel 23 A, which was covered by a lease, and parcel 23 B, which was not.
The county's expert witness testified that the land taken in connection with parcel 23 A was worth $1.52 per square foot. The owner, appellee I.R.E. Real Estate Fund, presented an expert witness who valued the land at $10 per square foot. The trial court struck the testimony of the county's expert and directed the jury to return a verdict for $27,300, a figure determined by multiplying the amount of square footage in parcel 23 A by $10.
The county first contends that the trial court erred in directing a verdict as to the value of parcel 23 A. We agree.
After the court struck the county's expert testimony, the only evidence remaining for the jury's consideration was the owner's expert testimony that the land had a value of $10 per square foot. Although the jury would have been authorized to return a verdict for $27,300 because the county did not present admissible testimony to refute the owner's value, see Wilkerson v. Division of Administration, State Department of Transportation, 319 So.2d 585 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975), the jury was not required to return a verdict for that amount. The jury could have rendered a verdict for an amount less than the maximum submitted by the landowner, as it is within the jury's province to determine the weight and credibility to be given an expert's testimony. Behm v. Division of Administration, State Department of Transportation, 336 So.2d 579 (Fla.1976); Division of Administration, State Department of Transportation v. Decker, 408 So.2d 1056 (Fla. 2d DCA), pet. for rev. denied, 415 So.2d 1361 (1982).
A jury may not make an independent determination of the value of property in an eminent domain proceeding, but in evaluating, interpreting, and weighing the credibility of an expert witness, the jury may apply its knowledge, its experience, any information obtained by a view of the property, and any other evidence presented in the case, to determine the reasonableness of the expert's testimony. Behm. The opinion of an expert is worth no more than the reasons on which it is based, and if properly susceptible, as in this case, to differing interpretations, the jury is at liberty to make such interpretations. Behm. Compensation in an eminent domain case must be committed for final determination to a jury, not an expert. Behm; see also Decker. The trial court therefore erred in directing a verdict as to the value of parcel 23 A.
The owner of parcel 23 A attempts to distinguish Behm on the basis that the landowner in that case had the burden of proof in connection with his claim for business damages, whereas the instant case involves a claim for the value of land taken, an issue for which the condemning authority has the burden of proof. The court in Behm did not limit its holding, however, to cases in which the landowner has the burden of proof. Furthermore, this court held in Decker that it is error to grant a directed verdict on the issue of fair market value of an easement (an issue for which the condemning authority has the burden of proof) where the condemning authority's appraisals have been stricken and the only estimates left in evidence are those offered by the landowner. Contrary to another argument raised by the owner of parcel 23 A, this court did not base the holding in Decker solely upon the fact that the condemning authority's evidence in that case had been erroneously excluded.
The owner of parcel 23 A further...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dep't Of Agriculture & Consumer Serv. v. Bogorff
...bound by unrebutted expert testimony); Baldwin Piano & Organ Co. v. Dote, 740 So.2d 1230 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); County of Sarasota v. Burdette, 479 So.2d 763, 764 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) (jury could return verdict for amount less than maximum sought by landowner because jury determines weight and ......
-
Tampa-Hillsborough County Expressway Authority v. A.G.W.S. Corp.
..."take" property that had no value. This would trivialize the constitutional right to just compensation. See County of Sarasota v. Burdette, 479 So.2d 763 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) (even where state presented no evidence as to value of property taken, jury could not have awarded zero damages just c......
-
Vega v. Travelers Indem. Co.
...than that suggested by expert testimony, it may not totally ignore the only evidence presented on that issue. County of Sarasota v. Burdette, 479 So.2d 763 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), rev. denied, 488 So.2d 830 (Fla.1986); Slacter v. City of St. Petersburg, 449 So.2d 1006 (Fla. 2d DCA), rev. denied......
-
Rosenbloom v. Rosenbloom
...So.2d 1186, 1187 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Baldwin Piano and Organ Co. v. Dote, 740 So.2d 1230 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); County of Sarasota v. Burdette, 479 So.2d 763 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); E.D. Rivers v. Phillips, 367 So.2d 251 (Fla. 3d DCA This court has stated, A trial judge can conclude, based on hi......