PHILIP AUERBACH AND CAROL AUERBACH, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed dismissal of inverse condemnation claim, holding that administrative planning preparatory to potential eminent domain proceedings does not constitute a compensable taking.
Administrative planning actions preparatory to possible eminent domain proceedings do not constitute a compensable taking sufficient to support an inverse condemnation action.
[1] Administrative planning and public hearings preparatory to potential eminent domain proceedings do not constitute a compensable taking under inverse condemnation law.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePhilip and Carol Auerbach owned property and subsequently lost it in a mortgage foreclosure action. The Florida Department of Transportation engaged i…
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 Compensable Taking cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the plaintiffs Philip and Carol Auerbach from a final order dismissing their second amended complaint for inverse condemnation. We affirm. Assuming without deciding that the plaintiffs have standing to bring this action after having divested themselves of the subject property in a subsequent mortgage foreclosure action, we conclude that there has been no compensable “taking” in this case. The plaintiffs’ complaint alleges that the defendant Florida Department of Transportation’s administrative planning actions, preparatory to the institution of possible eminent domain proceedings, rendered their property economically useless and of no value. In our view, such administrative planning, which of necessity requires public hearings, does not in itself constitute a “taking” sufficient to enable the property owner to maintain an inverse condemnation action. This seems to us a self-evident proposition, else administrative planning of this sort, preparatory to a decision to institute eminent domain proceedings, would be, in effect, precluded. See, e.g., Danforth v. United States, 308 U.S. 271, 60 S.Ct. 231, 84 L.Ed. 240 (1939); City of Chicago v. Loitz, 61 Ill.2d 92, 329 N.E. 2d 208 (1975); City of Buffalo v. J.W. Clement Co., 28 N.Y.2d 241, 321 N.Y.S.2d 345, 269 N.E. 2d 895 (1971), and cases cited therein. See generally 2 J. Sackman, Nichols’ The Law of Eminent Domain § 6.21[a] (3d ed. 1985 & Supp.1989).