Yoder v. Sarasota County
| Decision Date | 15 June 1955 |
| Parties | Mary G. YODER et al., Appellants, v. SARASOTA COUNTY, a body politic of the State of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Robertson & Robertson, Sarasota, for appellants.
Glenn L. Berry, Sarasota, for appellee.
Appellants Harry A. Gregg and wife were defendants below in an eminent domain proceeding instituted by Sarasota County to condemn certain lands of appellants for a public beach and recreation purposes, authorized by Chapter 27886, Sp.Laws of Florida 1951, and Chapter 22802, Laws of Florida 1945, F.S.A. § 127.01. The cause proceeded to trial and resulted in a jury award of $80,000 to the Greggs for the property taken plus a fee for their attorneys. The final judgment followed the verdict. Being dissatisfied with the award, appellants-Gregg moved for a new trial which was denied, and on appeal to this Court they assign three errors:
1. The verdict was contrary to the weight of the evidence.
2. The verdict was a quotient verdict.
3. Evidence was permitted without objection showing the amount of filling that would have to be done to raise the property to a level sufficient to adapt it to various uses. Appellant offered to prove that 'if this property is developed and used for the highest and most profitable use for which the property is adaptable, that it will have a value of $250.00 (an acre) and up'. Appellant contends that the Court erroneously refused the proffer.
We will discuss the assigned errors in reverse because the last assignment presents the most serious problem.
On the quoted proffer tendered by appellant, the lower Court ruled: All your witnesses you asked what it was worth, what it was useful for and what was the most profitable use to which it could be put. I am not cutting you off from the use of as many witnesses as you want. If you have some more witnesses, call them. I will not prevent your asking the witness the value of the property for any use to which it might be put, ask that, and call any other witnesses you want and ask them the same thing if you like, but I must ask you to proceed along, because we must get going with this again.'
Appellant previously had attempted to show on cross-examination what the property would be worth in the future, 'if properly filled,' for a particular use stated to be its most profitable use. The Court ruled such evidence to be too speculative.
The lower Court ruled correctly both on the proffer and the attempted cross-examination.
We have consistently ruled that the amount of compensation to be awarded to a property owner when his property is sought to be taken in an eminent domain proceeding is the value of the land taken at the time of the lawful appropriation. It is appropriate to show the uses to which the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Department of Transp. v. Burnette
...but was not done at the time of taking, and then attribute that greater value to the land so hypothetically improved. Yoder v. Sarasota County, 81 So.2d 219 (Fla.1955); Coral-Glade Co. v. Board of Pub. Instr. of Dade County, 122 So.2d 587 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960). These lands having been taken, i......
-
Fruit Growers Exp. Co. v. City of Alexandria
...256 A.2d 275, 287 (Del.Super.1969); Department of Highways v. Schulhoff, 167 Colo. 72, 78, 445 P.2d 402, 405 (1968); Yoder v. Sarasota County, 81 So.2d 219, 221 (Fla.1955); Commonwealth v. Evans, 361 S.W.2d 766, 770 (Ky.1962); State Highway Commission v. Conrad, 263 N.C. 394, 397, 139 S.E.2......
-
Staninger v. Jacksonville Expressway Authority, G-415
...not qualified to testify on these points, but such testimony is so speculative as to be inherently inadmissible. In Yoder v. Sarasota County, 81 So.2d 219 (Fla.1955), the owner sought to prove the value of the property in the future, 'if properly filled,' for a particular use stated to be i......
-
Volusia County v. Pickens
...compensation to be awarded to a property owner is the value of the land taken at the time of the lawful appropriation. Yoder v. Sarasota County, 81 So.2d 219 (Fla.1955); Staninger v. Jacksonville Expressway Authority, 182 So.2d 483 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966). When the condemning authority exercise......