ESTATE OF MAURICE (MOE) HOROWITZ, ET AL., OR EDITH H. BROIDA AND ALVIN EDWARD HOROWITZ AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES OF ESTATE OF MAURICE (MOE) HOROWITZ, DECEASED, APPELLANTS,
v.
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, A FLORIDA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, APPELLEE
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.
In a condemnation case, the appellate court reversed the trial court's exclusion of the property owners' expert real estate appraiser's testimony. The court held that the trial court abused its discretion in disqualifying the expert despite his substantial qualifications and preparation, as lacking prior testimony experience in Dade County was an insufficient basis for exclusion.
The trial court abused its discretion by excluding the expert appraiser's testimony. The expert demonstrated sufficient qualifications and specialized knowledge regarding real estate appraisal to assist the jury in determining the true value of the condemned property, and the fact that he had not previously testified in Dade County as an appraisal expert was an insufficient basis for exclusion.
[1] A trial court's discretion in determining the competency of an expert witness is broad but not unbridled.
[2] A real estate appraiser's qualifications, including education, experience, and prior expert testimony in condemnation matters, may establish their competency to assist a…
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“Florida's constitutional guaranty of full and just compensation in eminent domain actions requires that courts take into account all facts and circumstances which bear a reasonable relationship to the loss occasioned an owner by virtue of his property being taken.”
Establishes the foundational principle that condemnation cases must consider all relevant facts to ensure fair compensation
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Estate of Maurice Horowitz owned property that was being condemned by the City of Miami Beach. The owners' expert appraiser, Mr. Figini, had a bac…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Expert Testimony cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this condemnation case, the property owners contend it was error for the trial court to disqualify their primary real estate appraiser’s expert testimony. We agree and reverse.
Florida’s constitutional guaranty1 of full and just compensation in eminent domain actions requires that courts take into account all facts and circumstances which bear a reasonable relationship to the loss occasioned an owner by virtue of his property being taken. Behm v. Division of Administration, Department of Transportation, 383 So. 2d 216 (Fla. 1980); Jacksonville Expressway Authority v. Henry G. Dupree Co., 108 So. 2d 289 (Fla.1959). Miami Beach asserts that in light of the trial court’s “almost unbridled” discretion in determining the competency of an expert witness,2 we are precluded from disturbing its decision to exclude the expert testimony of the owner’s appraiser. We reject that position as being devoid of merit. We recognize that trial courts have broad discretion in determining whether one proffered as an expert witness should be accepted as such; this discretion is not, however, unbridled. Trustees of Central States Southeast and Southwest Areas, Pension Fund v. Indico Corporation, 401 So. 2d 904, 905 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). See also Florida Power Corp. v. Wenzel, 113 So. 2d 747, 751 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959).
In the instant case, appellant’s excluded expert appraiser demonstrated that he possessed special knowledge about real estate appraisal that would have assisted the jury in reaching the true value of the property in question. See Buchman v. Seaboard Coast Line R. Co., 381 So. 2d 229 (Fla.1980); School Board of Broward County v. Surette, 394 So. 2d 147 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). His qualifications included a bachelor’s degree in business administration from Seton Hall, post-graduate work at Rutgers University, fifteen years’ experience as a real estate appraiser and court expert in New Jersey condemnation matters, a Florida real estate broker’s license and appearance as an expert in the circuit court of Broward County.
We hold that, on these facts, the trial court abused its discretion by excluding the expert testimony. Section 90.702, Fla.Stat. (1979); Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.390(a). Mr. Figini testified that he had devoted in excess of one hundred hours to the study of the appraisal issues in this case. The fact that he had not previously testified in Dade County as an appraisal expert is an insufficient basis to exclude his testimony.
Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with the view expressed herein. In view of our reversal, we do not address the other issues presented.
Reversed and remanded.
. Art. X, § 6, Fla. Const. . See Division of Administration v. Saemann, 399 So. 2d 359, 361 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Malone v. Division of Administration, 438 So. 2d 857 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…ned an owner by virtue of his property being taken. Behm v. Division of Administration, Department of Transportation, 383 So. 2d 216 (Fla.1980); Jacksonville Express Authority v. Henry G. DuPree Co., supra; Estate of Horowitz v. City of Miami Beach, 420 So. 2d 936 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). Certainly the Malones were required to find a suitable location for their new plant. They were not, however, reasonably required to employ a real estate firm to assist them in this regard. In contrast was the work performed by t…
-
Bisque Assocs. OF Fla., Inc. v. Towers OF Quayside NO. 2 Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 639 So. 2d 997 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)…ance to pay full market price for a unit whose plumbing had a repeated tendency to clog and overflow. The matter of qualifications -of an expert witness falls within the sound discretion of the trial court. Estate of Horowitz v. City of Miami Beach, 420 So. 2d 936 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). However, the record reveals that the court disallowed the plaintiffs expert witness testimony concerning diminution of value not because she was unqualified so to testify, but rather because the court had already decided that the…
-
Dade Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Broks Ctr., 528 So. 2d 373 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…e Wilson v. Renfroe, 91 So. 2d 857, 861 (Fla.1956); Claughton v. Claughton, 452 So. 2d 1073, 1073 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), rev. denied, 492 So. 2d 1330 (Fla.1986), but was a duly qualified and fair appraiser. See Horowitz’s Estate v. City of Miami Beach, 420 So. 2d 936, 937 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); State Road Dept. v. Outlaw, 148 So. 2d 741, 742-43 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963). Affirmed.…
Authorities Cited
- Jacksonville Expressway Auth. v. Henry G. DU Pree Co., 108 So. 2d 289 (Fla. 1958)
- Elliott Buchman v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co., 381 So. 2d 229 (Fla. 1980)
- The Sch. Bd. OF Broward Cnty. v. Surette, 394 So. 2d 147 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- Behm v. Division OF Administration, 383 So. 2d 216 (Fla. 1980)
- The Trs. OF Cent. States Se. & Sw. Areas v. Indico Corp., 401 So. 2d 904 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)
- Fla. Power Corp. v. Otto Wenzel, 113 So. 2d 747 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959)
- Division OF Administration v. Saemann, 399 So. 2d 359 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)