St. Johns River Water Management District v. Koontz, 5D04-2113.
Citation | 908 So.2d 518 |
Decision Date | 24 June 2005 |
Docket Number | No. 5D04-2113.,5D04-2113. |
Parties | ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, Appellant, v. Coy A. KOONTZ, Jr., etc., Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
William H. Congdon, Palatka, for Appellant.
Christopher V. Carlyle, Shannon McLin Carlyle, Roy B. "Skip" Dalton, Jr., and Gilbert S. Goshorn, Jr., of The Carlyle Appellate Law Firm, The Villages, and Michael D. Jones of Michael D. Jones & Associates, P.A., Winter Springs, for Appellees.
Valerie A. Fernandez, Coral Gables, for Amicus Curiae Pacific Legal Foundation.
We address this inverse condemnation case for the third time. In St. Johns River Water Management District v. Koontz, 861 So.2d 1267 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (Koontz II), we dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We explained at that time that, despite the fact that the order was labeled a "Final Judgment," it was not final because further judicial labor was expressly contemplated. Id. After further proceedings, Appellant once again filed an appeal wherein it represented in its notice that it was challenging a "Final Judgment." The "Final Judgment," despite being labeled as such, once again is not a final order because it merely makes a finding of liability but expressly reserves jurisdiction to assess damages against Appellant for having wrongfully taken Appellee's property. As we have previously held, a finding of liability in an inverse condemnation action is neither a final order nor an appealable non-final order. Osceola v. Best Diversified, Inc., 830 So.2d 139 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002).1
APPEAL DISMISSED.
I am constrained to agree with the majority because we do not have jurisdiction to do otherwise. If we did, I would affirm the trial court for the reasons expressed by Judge Pleus in Koontz II. Moreover, I would add that, in my view, Appellant has waived its right to challenge the lower court's order by agreeing to issue the permit.
Pursuant to subsections 373.617(3) and (4), Florida Statutes (2003), Appellant had four choices after the lower court held that it had taken Appellee's property. It could: (1) agree to issue the permit; (2) agree to pay damages; (3) modify its decision; or (4) do nothing for 90 days, in which case the court could order Appellant to do 1, 2 or 3. Here, Appellant chose option one with the proviso that it reserved the right to challenge the court's order. The added proviso, however, is not authorized by the statute. Had Appellant wished to challenge the lower court's finding, it should have done nothing for...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
St. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist. v. Koontz
...River Water Mgmt. Dist. v. Koontz, 861 So.2d 1267, 1268 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) ( Koontz II ); St. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist. v. Koontz, 908 So.2d 518, 518 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) ( Koontz III ). After the trial court entered a judgment assessing damages in favor of Coy A. Koontz, Jr., as person......
-
St. Johns River Water Management v. Koontz
...St. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist. v. Koontz, 861 So.2d 1267 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) ["Koontz II"]; St. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist. v. Koontz, 908 So.2d 518 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) ["Koontz III"]. We This case involves a landowner, Mr. Koontz, who, in 1994, requested permits from the District so t......
-
Cason ex rel. Saferight v. Hammock
... ... No. 5D04-2111 ... District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District ... ...
-
St. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist. v. Koontz
...I ]; St. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist. v. Koontz, 861 So.2d 1267 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) ; St. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist. v. Koontz, 908 So.2d 518 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) ; and St. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist. v. Koontz, 5 So.3d 8 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) [Koontz IV ]. In Koontz IV, at Appellant's r......
-
Comment on Climate Exactions
...5th DCA 2003). 6. Id. at 1268-69 (Pleus, J., concurring specially). 7. See, e.g., St. John’s River Water Management Dist. v. Koontz, 908 So. 2d 518, 519 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (Torpy, J. concurring and concurring specially) (noting that if the Court had jurisdiction, “I would airm the trial co......