GUS BOULIS, APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, ET AL., APPELLEES
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Eminent Domain cases and more on FLexlaw
DAUKSCH, Judge.
The issue in this appeal in an eminent domain case is whether the condemnee is entitled to prejudgment interest on costs necessarily expended by him in preparation for trial. He says that unless he is paid that interest on money expended and thus unavailable for other use, then he is deprived of his property without due process. He further points out that the condemnor has unlimited funds, is able to hire whomever it pleases at any cost and thus a condemnee could be put at a disadvantage in litigation; again depriving him without due process.
It is our determination that no legal precedent exists to support appellant’s position, even though logic and fair play do. Following the constraints placed upon us by Hoffman v. Jones, 280 So. 2d 431 (Fla.1973), we decline to establish new law but certify to our supreme court the question in this appeal as being one of great public importance.
The order denying prejudgment interest is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
W. SHARP and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gus Boulis v. Fla. Dep't OF Transp., 733 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 1999)…OVERTON, Senior Justice. We have for review Boulis v. Department of Transportation, 709 So. 2d 206 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998), in which the district court declined to award prejudgment interest on costs incurred in a eminent domain proceeding. In so holding, the district court certified the issue of whether prejudgment interest on such costs may be awar…
-
State v. Interstate Hotels Corp., 709 So. 2d 1387 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…2d 1260 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992), which holds that there is no such entitlement, she did so anyway. In sharp contrast, we are entitled to depart from that decision, but, because we entirely agree with it, do not.1 See also Boulis v. Department of Transp., 709 So. 2d 206 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)(prejudg-ment interest on costs not recoverable).2 Accordingly, the award of prejudgment interest below is Reversed. . Even if, as we hold it is not, prejudgment interest could be awarded under some circumstances, it was unavai…
-
Williams v. State, 710 So. 2d 1388 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)…incorrectly reflects that defendant was convicted of burglary of a dwelling, a second degree felony (§ 810.02(3), Fla. Stat.), when in fact he pled to burglary of a structure, a third degree felony (§ 810.02(4)(a), Fla. Stat.). See Slatter v. State, 709 So. 2d 206 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). AFFIRMED; REMANDED to correct clerical error. W. SHARP and ANTOON, JJ., concur. i…
Authorities Cited
- Hoffman v. Jones, 280 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 1973)