CENTURY CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
CENTRAL TELEPHONE COMPANY OF FLORIDA, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEE

Fla. 1st DCA | 1979-05-04
No. LL-395
MILLS, Acting C. J., ERVIN, J., and MASON, ERNEST E., Associate Judge, concur.
370 So. 2d 825 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (1979) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

Century Construction appealed a judgment requiring it to reimburse Central Telephone Company for the costs of relocating telephone facilities when Century extended Timberlane Road across Meridian Road for its private development project. The court affirmed, holding that because the road extension was a private developer's decision for private benefit rather than a public entity's exercise of police power, the developer must bear the utility relocation costs.


Holding

The court held that the private developer must pay the utility relocation costs because the road extension was a private business decision made for private benefit, not a public entity's exercise of police power. The court rejected reliance on the New Jersey case, which involved a public county planning board implementing a police power decision for public benefit.


Headnotes

[1] A private developer, acting for its own private benefit, is liable for the costs incurred by a utility company in relocating its facilities when the developer's project n…

[2] A statute requiring a public body or authority to pay for utility facility relocation does not apply when the relocation is necessitated by the decision of a private deve…

Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Key Quotes

“There the relocation resulted from the exercise of the police power for the benefit of the general public. But in the case at bar no public entity elected to construct the extension of Timberlane Road across Meridian Road. The decision was made by Century in order to have access to a new subdivision proposed by it.”

The court's key distinction between the Fellowship Bank case (public entity) and the present case (private developer), establishing that private developers bear relocation costs for private projects.

Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Century Construction proposed a new subdivision and decided to extend Timberlane Road across Meridian Road to provide access to it. This extension req…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Topics

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Police Power cases and more on FLexlaw


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

[*826] PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Century Construction Corporation (Century) appeals a final judgment rendered by the Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit in and for Leon County, Charles E. Miner, Jr., Judge, in favor of Appellee, Central Telephone Company of Florida (Centel), finding that Century was liable to Centel for costs incurred by the latter in performing the re-location of certain above ground telephone facilities owned by Centel, in the sum of $4,814.65, together with an attorney’s fee of $500.00 awarded in accordance with a stipulation entered into by the parties prior to trial below.

We affirm, and in so doing agree with the findings of law and fact made by the trial court in the partial summary judgment and final judgment entered herein. Appellant has made a part of the record herein memoranda submitted by it to the trial court below. It is evident that the trial court in rendering the judgments below considered the authorities cited by appellant in such memoranda, and the reasoning put forth by it in support of its position with respect to the issues raised by the pleadings, and that the trial court rejected such. We hold that he did not err in so doing.

The appellant in its briefs and oral argument presented to this court, in addition to the authorities presented to the trial court below, the New Jersey case of Fellowship Bank v. Public Service Electric and Gas Company, 158 N.J.Super. 107, 385 A. 2d 887 (1978). Reliance upon that case is ill-placed. In that case liability was placed upon the utility to relocate at its own expense utility poles required to be moved in a road widening project because the County Planning Board had implemented a police power decision to widen the right-of-way of the road there involved. There the relocation resulted from the exercise of the police power for the benefit of the general public. But in the case at bar no public entity elected to construct the extension of Tim-berlane Road across Meridian Road. The decision was made by Century in order to have access to a new subdivision proposed by it. No where in the record herein is a finding that Timberlane Road ever would have been extended across Meridian Road by any public body. Furthermore, appellant can take no solace by virtue of the provisions of Chapter 338.19 (1977). That statute by its own terms applies only to circumstances where a public body or authority elects to take action requiring utility facilities relocation. Here, the decision was that of a private developer made for its private benefit.

In accordance with the terms of a pretrial stipulation made by the parties to the effect that the loser of this litigation would pay to the winner certain amounts, both at the trial and appellate levels, to be applied on account of attorneys fees incurred by such winner, an appellate attorney’s fee of $1,000.00 is awarded appellee herein.

Affirmed.

MILLS, Acting C. J., ERVIN, J., and MASON, ERNEST E., Associate Judge, concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Oriole Homes Corp. v. Bellsouth Telecomms., Inc., 641 So. 2d 504 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)
    …-not the public body — is to bear the cost of relocation. However, the dispute here is not between the county and the utility. To us, the issue is the same as perceived by our companion court in Century Construction Corp. v. Central Telephone Co., 370 So. 2d 825 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); namely, whether the decision to make the improvement — there an extension rather than a widening — was the developer’s or the county’s. It held that one of the above statute’s predecessors, section 338.19, Florida Statutes (1977…

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw