WILLIAM E. KIRCHHOFF, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEE OF THE WILLIAM E. KIRCHHOFF, JR. REVOCABLE TRUST, PETITIONER,
v.
SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, POLK COUNTY, FLORIDA, CHARLES RINALDI, ROBERT SCHAEFFER, MEREDITH L. SCOTT, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEE, JOHN B. ARNOLD, S. DAVID SPECTOR, PATTERSON W. MOSELEY, SHERRY B. MOSELEY, LAWRENCE J. BYRNE, ANDREW S. TAUSSIG, AND JOHN OCHSNER, RESPONDENTS
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.
Kirchhoff petitioned for a writ of certiorari to prevent a trial court from entering an order of taking in an eminent domain proceeding by the South Florida Water Management District. The court granted the petition, finding the trial court violated procedural due process by denying Kirchhoff the right to be heard as a named defendant in the quick-take proceeding.
The trial court departed from the essential requirements of law and violated procedural due process by denying Kirchhoff the right to be heard. As a named defendant, Kirchhoff was entitled under section 74.051(1), Florida Statutes, to appear and be heard on all matters properly before the court, including jurisdictional and sufficiency of pleadings arguments.
[1] A party named as a defendant in an eminent domain action is entitled to be heard on all matters properly before the court prior to the entry of an order of taking, includ…
[2] A trial court departs from the essential requirements of law and fails to provide procedural due process when it denies a named defendant the right to be heard in a quick…
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“the trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law and failed to provide procedural due process to Mr. Kirehhoff when it denied him the right to be heard, as a party, at the quick-take proceeding”
Statement of the core legal violation - the trial court's failure to accord due process
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKirchhoff was formerly trustee of a land trust held for the Lake Kissimmee Partnership and transferred title to Meredith L. Scott as Successor Trustee…
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 Right To Be Heard cases and more on FLexlaw
ALTENBERND, Acting Chief Judge.
William E. Kirchhoff, individually and as Trustee of the William E. Kirchhoff, Jr. Revocable Trust, petitions this court for a writ of prohibition or, in the alternative, a writ of certiorari preventing the trial court from entering an order of taking pursuant to South Florida Water Management District’s (SFWMD) petition for taking filed under section 74.031, Florida Statutes (2000). We treat the petitioner’s request as a petition for writ of certiorari and conclude that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law and failed to provide procedural due process to Mr. Kirehhoff when it denied him the right to be heard, as a party, at the quick-take proceeding. See Ivey v. Allstate Ins. Co., 774 So. 2d 679 (Fla.2000).
At an earlier time, Mr. Kirehhoff was trustee of a land trust held for the benefit of the several members of the Lake Kis-simmee Partnership. In 1997 Mr. Kirchhoff transferred title to respondent, Meredith L. Scott, as Successor Trustee, and currently Mr. Kirehhoff and Mr. Scott are litigating the ownership of the property in an action separate from this case. See Kirchhoff v. Scott, 736 So. 2d 786 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). In that proceeding, Mr. Kirchhoff claims the former partnership no longer exists and each partner owns a respective interest in the property as tenants-in-common. Mr. Scott claims the trust still exists and he is the valid trustee. Due to this pending issue, Mr. Kirehhoff may at this time have a contingent interest in the land SFWMD is attempting to take.
Mr. Scott, as trustee, commenced this lawsuit by suing SFWMD for inverse condemnation. After mediation, Mr. Scott and SFWMD apparently agreed that SFWMD would counterclaim for eminent domain of the trust property and pursue a quick-take. SFWMD named all the partners of the Lake Kissimmee Partnership as defendants in the eminent domain action, including Mr. Kirehhoff, individually and as Trustee of the William E. Kirehhoff, Jr. Revocable Trust. A hearing was set on the petition for taking for May 16, 2001, and Mr. Kirehhoff filed several motions objecting to the petition including a motion to dismiss based on jurisdictional arguments and a motion to prohibit the withdrawal of funds. Mr. Kirehhoff requested hearings on the motions and appeared in court May 16, 2001. The trial court ruled that Mr. Kirehhoff did not have standing to be heard in the cause and did not consider his motions. Although the trial court orally granted the quick-take, the written order has not been entered because this court stayed the proceedings below after Mr. Kirehhoff filed his petition for writ of prohibition.
It is clear the trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law when it failed to allow Mr. Kirehhoff to be heard on the petition for taking. Because SFWMD named Mr. Kirehhoff as a defendant, he was entitled to certain rights. Section 74.051(1), Florida Statutes (2000), states:
If a defendant requests a hearing pursuant to s. 74.041(3), said defendant may appear and be heard on all matters properly before the court which may be determined prior to the entry of the order of taking, including the jurisdiction of the court, the sufficiency of the pleadings ... and the amount to be deposited for the property sought to be appropriated.
The trial court did not adhere to the requirements of section 74.051. As a matter of due process, Mr. Kirehhoff is entitled to relief. The trial court shall provide Mr. Kirehhoff, individually and as Trustee of the William E. Kirehhoff, Jr. Revocable Trust, a hearing and an opportunity to be heard in this case.
Petition for writ of certiorari is granted.
CASANUEVA and SALCINES, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Melvin v. State, 804 So. 2d 460 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…ns without sworn proof. Because the orders violated the detainees’ due process rights, they were entitled to have them vacated. The court’s refusal to do so departed from the essential requirements of law. See Kirchhoff v. S. Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist., 805 So. 2d 848 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (holding [*464] that trial court in eminent domain quick-take proceeding departed from essential requirements of law by failing to afford landowner procedural due process required by statute). This may not end the matter, however…
Authorities Cited
- Farren Ivey v. Allstate Ins. Co., 774 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 2000)
- Kirchhoff v. Scott, 736 So. 2d 786 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)