DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
AVIGDOR LANDMAN, ETC., ET AL., APPELLEES
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 reversed inverse condemnation judgment, holding that diminished access to property resulting from road improvements does not constitute a compensable taking when the property owner had no legal right to the access that was limited.
A property owner is not entitled to compensation for inverse condemnation when road improvements diminish but do not eliminate access to the property, because the owner had no legal right to the access that was limited.
[1] A property owner has no legal right to compensation for inverse condemnation when road improvements diminish access to the property if the owner possessed no legal right…
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 intelligence“If appellees had lost access to their property then they would be entitled to compensation. But because appellees only suffered a limitation of access, to which they had no property right, they have no legal right to compensation for a taking.”
Court distinguishing between complete loss of access (compensable) and mere limitation of access (not compensable).
The Department of Transportation widened a road abutting appellee's property and constructed curbs where none had existed. Previously, the property ow…
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
DAUKSCH, Judge.
This is an appeal from a judgment in an inverse condemnation case. At issue is whether the improvements to a roadway abutting appellee’s property constituted a compensable taking of real property. We reverse.
Appellant widened the road and constructed curbs where none had existed. The widening of the road is not the harm; it’s the construction of the curb. Previously, appel-lee enjoyed, but had no legal right to, a eurbless entry onto his property and this resulted in some places to park for his invitees. After the curbwork only a driveway entrance remained and the ears could no longer pull into the property and back out into the roadway. Access was diminished but not eliminated. Some parking was either eliminated or made very difficult.
If appellees had lost access to their property then they would be entitled to compensation. See Palm Beach County v. Tessler, 588 So. 2d 846 (Fla.1989); State Dep’t of Transp. v. Stubbs, 285 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1973); Benerofe v. State Road Dep’t, 217 So. 2d 838 (Fla.1969); Anhoco Corp. v. Dade County, 144 So. 2d 793 (Fla.1962). But because appellees only suffered a limitation of access, to which they had no property right, they have no legal right to compensation for a taking. Rubano v. Dep’t of Transp., 656 So. 2d 1264 (Fla. 1995); Weaver Oil Co. v. City of Tallahassee, 647 So. 2d 819 (Fla.1994); Division of Administration, State Dep’t of Transp. v. Capital Plaza, Inc., 397 So. 2d 682 (Fla.1981).
The judgment is reversed.
REVERSED.
PETERSON, C.J., and ANTOON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Anhoco Corp. v. Dade Cnty., 144 So. 2d 793 (Fla. 1962)
- State of Fla. Dep't OF Transp. v. Stubbs, 285 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1973)
- Division of Administration v. Cap. Plaza, Inc., 397 So. 2d 682 (Fla. 1981)
- Rubano v. Dep't OF Transp., 656 So. 2d 1264 (Fla. 1995)
- Benerofe v. State Rd. Dep't of Fla., 217 So. 2d 838 (Fla. 1969)
- Weaver OIL Co. v. City OF Tallahassee, 647 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 1994)