COUNTY OF VOLUSIA, APPELLANT,
v.
W.R. PICKENS, ET AL., 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.
The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed an award of attorney's fees and court costs in an inverse condemnation case, holding that a successful plaintiff is entitled to recover such fees from the defendant governmental authority regardless of whether the taking was direct or inverse condemnation.
A successful plaintiff in an inverse condemnation case is entitled to recover reasonable attorney's fees and court costs from the defendant governmental authority. A plaintiff may recover a reasonable amount for all costs and attorney's fees reasonably and necessarily expended in connection with investigation, research, preparation, and presentation of the case at both trial and appellate levels.
[1] A successful plaintiff in an inverse condemnation case is entitled to recover attorney's fees and court costs from the defendant.
[2] A governmental authority that takes property must pay all consequent legally recognized damages, costs, and fees, regardless of whether the taking was by direct or invers…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“if it complies with the law of this state by instituting an eminent domain action, it is liable for attorney's fees; but if it unlawfully appropriates a citizen's property without instituting such an action, it thus escapes liability for the attorney's fees incurred by the aggrieved owner. The absurdity of this argument disposes of this point contra to the Department's contention.”
Establishes the illogical nature of allowing governments to avoid fee liability through unlawful takings rather than proper condemnation procedures
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceVolusia County appealed from a trial court order awarding attorney's fees and court costs to W.R. Pickens and other appellees in an inverse condemnati…
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 Consequential Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
DAUKSCH, Judge.
This is an appeal from an order awarding attorney’s fees and court costs in an inverse condemnation case.
As to the question of whether a successful plaintiff in an inverse condemnation case should be entitled to his fees and costs from the defendant, we answer in the affirmative and adopt the following reasoning of the First District Court of Appeal in State Road Dept. v. Lewis, 190 So. 2d 598, 600 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. dismissed, 192 So. 2d 499 (Fla.1966):
Next the Department questions the propriety of the allowance for attorney’s fees in an inverse condemnation case. We summarily dispose of this contention by observing that the sovereign without due process confiscated property belonging to one of its citizens. Viewing the Department’s argument to a logical conclusion, we find its position to be that if it complies with the law of this state by instituting an eminent domain action, it is liable for attorney’s fees; but if it unlawfully appropriates a citizen’s property without instituting such an action, it thus escapes liability for the attorney’s fees incurred by the aggrieved owner. The absurdity of this argument disposes of this point contra to the Department’s contention.
The next question involves whether the court awarded the proper amount. There was ample evidence, chiefly from appellee’s attorney, which supports the amount awarded, thus the trial court did not err in this regard. There is some argument presented regarding from what date the plaintiff became entitled to fees and costs and for what services he should be reimbursed. The plaintiff is entitled to recover a reasonable amount for all costs and attorney’s fees reasonably and necessarily expended in connection with the investigation, research, preparation and presentation of the case, both at the trial level and the appellate level, cf: Division of Administration v. Morgan, 281 So. 2d 905 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973).
It is our opinion that if a governmental authority takes property then that government must pay all consequent legally recognized damages, costs and fees, regardless of whether the taking was by direct or inverse condemnation.
AFFIRMED.
SHARP and COWART, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State Rd. Dep't of Fla. v. Lewis, 190 So. 2d 598 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966)
- Goldstein v. Marsha Kay Co., 192 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 1966)
- Crooke v. Wainwright, 192 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 1966)
- Division OF Administration v. William C. Morgan et ux., 281 So. 2d 905 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973)