Weese v. Pinellas County, No. 94-04428
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
| Writing for the Court | RYDER |
| Citation | 668 So.2d 221 |
| Parties | 21 Fla. L. Weekly D331 Rollie L. WEESE and Henry J. Weese, Appellants, v. PINELLAS COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, Appellee. |
| Docket Number | No. 94-04428 |
| Decision Date | 31 January 1996 |
Page 221
v.
PINELLAS COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, Appellee.
Second District.
Rehearing Denied Feb. 21, 1996.
Page 222
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; John S. Andrews, Judge.
Suzanne LaBerge of Gruskin & LaBerge, P.A., St. Petersburg, for Appellants.
Carol B. Abernathy, Senior Assistant County Attorney, Clearwater, for Appellee.
RYDER, Acting Chief Judge.
Rollie and Henry Weese claim the trial court erred when it excluded the testimony of their business damage expert during the trial of this eminent domain action. They also challenge the court's refusal to allow Rollie Weese, the former owner of the business, to give his opinion on business damages. We agree with their contentions, reverse and remand for a new trial.
In April 1991, Pinellas County filed an eminent domain petition, seeking to condemn a portion of Rollie Weese's land for a road construction project. Henry Weese owned and operated a business, Guarantee Auto Sales, on the property. The order of taking was entered July 2, 1991. Rollie and the County settled the issue of compensation for the land taken, so a trial was held on the issue of business damages only.
This case centers around the testimony of David A. Salverson, an accountant and the Weeses' business damage expert. After the court qualified him as an expert, the County conducted a voir dire about the date of value used in his damages calculation. The majority of the voir dire took place out of the jury's presence. Salverson testified that he first met the Weeses in the summer of 1992. Although the order of taking had been entered in July 1991, the road construction project had not yet reached Rollie's property. In fact, Guarantee continued to use the condemned property to display cars until September 1993 when construction began in its vicinity. The construction was completed in February 1994. Mr. Salverson testified that although the transfer of title to Pinellas County occurred in July 1991, and was the legal cause of the business damages, actual damages did not occur until completion of the road project in February 1994.
Mr. Salverson stated that the business damages resulted from a loss of automobile display spaces on the land condemned. In order to calculate the amount of damages, he reviewed Guarantee's business records for several years before the 1991 condemnation. He did his own traffic...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chavez v. State, SC07-952.
...specialized knowledge through an occupation or business or frequent interaction with the subject matter. See Weese v. Pinellas County, 668 So.2d 221, 223 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (citing Harvey v. State, 129 Fla. 289, 176 So. 439, 440 (1937) (witnesses were qualified as expert cattlemen and butch......
-
Bombardier Aerospace Corp. v. Signature Flight Support Corp., s. 5D12–2401
...damages.4Chavez v. State, 12 So.3d 199, 205 (Fla.2009); Harvey v. State, 129 Fla. 289, 176 So. 439, 440 (1937); Weese v. Pinellas Cnty., 668 So.2d 221, 223 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). We also find no error in the trial court's ruling, which permitted Mr. McBreen to testify in the original trial, as......
-
Bombardier Aerospace Corp. v. Signature Flight Support Corp., Case No. 5D12-2401
...this subject.4 Chavez v. State, 12 So. 3d 199, 205 (Fla. 2009); Harvey v. State, 176 So. 439, 440 (Fla. 1937); Weese v. Pinellas Cnty., 668 So. 2d 221, 223 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). We also find no error in the trial court's ruling, which permitted Mr. McBreen to testify in the original trial, as......
-
Sihle Ins. Group, Inc. v. Right Way Hauling, Inc., 5D01-3327.
...testify as an expert if he is qualified to do so by reason of knowledge obtained in his occupation or business. Weese v. Pinellas County, 668 So.2d 221 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). The expert witness testified that he was a public adjuster who prepared appraisals and negotiated settlements for prope......
-
Chavez v. State, SC07-952.
...specialized knowledge through an occupation or business or frequent interaction with the subject matter. See Weese v. Pinellas County, 668 So.2d 221, 223 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (citing Harvey v. State, 129 Fla. 289, 176 So. 439, 440 (1937) (witnesses were qualified as expert cattlemen and butch......
-
Bombardier Aerospace Corp. v. Signature Flight Support Corp., s. 5D12–2401
...damages.4Chavez v. State, 12 So.3d 199, 205 (Fla.2009); Harvey v. State, 129 Fla. 289, 176 So. 439, 440 (1937); Weese v. Pinellas Cnty., 668 So.2d 221, 223 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). We also find no error in the trial court's ruling, which permitted Mr. McBreen to testify in the original trial, as......
-
Bombardier Aerospace Corp. v. Signature Flight Support Corp., Case No. 5D12-2401
...this subject.4 Chavez v. State, 12 So. 3d 199, 205 (Fla. 2009); Harvey v. State, 176 So. 439, 440 (Fla. 1937); Weese v. Pinellas Cnty., 668 So. 2d 221, 223 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). We also find no error in the trial court's ruling, which permitted Mr. McBreen to testify in the original trial, as......
-
Sihle Ins. Group, Inc. v. Right Way Hauling, Inc., 5D01-3327.
...testify as an expert if he is qualified to do so by reason of knowledge obtained in his occupation or business. Weese v. Pinellas County, 668 So.2d 221 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). The expert witness testified that he was a public adjuster who prepared appraisals and negotiated settlements for prope......