STATE ROAD DEPARTMENT OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
JERRY J. CHICONE ET UX., 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.
The Florida appellate court affirmed the trial court's grant of a new trial in a condemnation proceeding, holding that evidence of property value decreases caused by the prospect of the public taking should not have been admitted under the Sunday v. Louisville and Nashville Railway rule, which only applies to increases in value from anticipated improvements.
The court held that the trial court properly granted a new trial because the Sunday rule, which permits consideration of value increases from anticipated improvements, does not apply to value decreases caused by the prospect of a taking. The rule should not be extended to make admissible evidence of depressed values based on the imminence of condemnation.
“If the property naturally, or in common with other property similarly conditioned, increases in market value in anticipation of the proposed improvement, before the appropriation, the compensation therefor is the fair actual market value at the time of the lawful appropriation.”
The core holding of the Sunday rule that applies only to value increases, not decreases from an anticipated taking
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe State Road Department brought a condemnation proceeding to acquire multiple parcels of land for Interstate Highway No. 4. At trial, the state's ap…
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 Just Compensation In Eminent Domain cases and more on FLexlaw
This appeal is from an order granting the defendants-appellees a new trial after the rendition of a verdict in a condemnation proceeding. The reasons for granting the new trial can be clearly shown by reciting the trial court’s order, which reads as follows :
“This cause coming on to be heard on November 13, 1961, upon the Motion for New Trial filed by the defendants, Jerry J. Chicone, individually and as Trustee, and Maude Lee Chicone, his wife, Jerry J. Chicone, Jr. and Sue Chicone, his wife, and Winter Garden Improvement Company, severally, as to parcels numbers 334-R, 349, 350-R and 3S1, 352, severally, and the Court having heard argument of counsel for both sides, and the Court finding that during the trial the testimony as to each parcel of the appraisal witnesses for the Petitioner consisted of estimates of value as “depressed” or “discounted” by the imminence of the taking of said parcel by Petitioner for the purpose of the public project involved in this suit, to-wit: Interstate Highway No. 4, all of which testimony defendants moved to strike, and the Court further finding that it denied said motions to strike and also denied defendants’ objections to the materiality, relevance and competence of Petitioner’s several questions to witnesses regarding the effect of the prospect of the taking on the market value of the properties taken, and the Court further finding that it refused to give defendants’ requested instruction No. 15, each of which said rulings the Court based upon the case of Sunday v. Louisville and Nashville Railway Company, 62 Fla. 395, 57 So. 351, and the Court *533now being- of the view that the rule of said case, which was decided in 1912, would not be the rule to be found today, and in any event, that said rule should not now be applied so as to make admissible evidence based upon the theories advanced by Petitioner and Petitioner’s witnesses in this case, and the Court therefore finding that the rulings complained of were prejudicial error to defendants, and that the other grounds of the Motion for New Trial need not therefor be considered; it is, in consideration thereof,
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the said Motion for New Trial be, and the same is hereby, granted.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers at Orlando, Orange County, Florida, this 18th day of January, A. D. 1962.”
The appellant, the petitioner in the trial court, contends that the trial court abused its discretion in granting a new trial because it is established law in Florida that in determining just compensation a jury shall consider the economic effect of an impending public improvement upon the value of the property taken. The case of Sunday, et al. v. Louisville and Nashville Railway Company, 62 Fla. 395, 57 So. 351, is relied upon by the appellant-petitioner for its position. The court in this case simply held that:
-“If the property naturally, or in common with other property similarly conditioned, increases in market value in anticipation of the proposed improvement, before the appropriation, the ■ compensation therefor is the fair actual market value at the time of the lawful appropriation.”
This holding is in line ' with our statutes providing the property owner with just compensation and in accordance with the Declaration of Rights, Section 12 and Article XVI, Section 29, of the Constitution of the State of Florida, F.S.A., guaranteeing to the property owner just and full compensation. The court, in the relied upon case, did not indicate by way of dicta or otherwise that a decrease in market value in anticipation of the proposed improvement would necessitate the application of the same rule of law.
Accordingly, we find no abuse of discretion here in the order granting the new trial.
Affirmed.
KANNER, Acting C. J., and WHITE, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State Rd. Dep't of Fla. v. Chicone, 158 So. 2d 753 (Fla. 1963)…O’CONNELL, Justice. The petitioner, State Road Department of Florida, hereinafter referred to as the Department, seeks review by certiorari of that decision of the District Court of Appeal, 2nd District, reported in 148 So. 2d 532, asserting that said decision is in direct conflict with the decision of this Court in Sunday v. Louisville and Nashville Railway Company, 1912, 62 Fla. 395, 57 So. 351. Briefly stated the Sunday decision held •that Section 29, Article 16, Florida…
-
Dade Cnty. v. Nunley, 35 Fla. Supp. 125 (Dade Cty. Cir. Ct. 1971)…ep in a program of accomplishing future widening of streets in the city of Miami. At the moment the ordinance is passed, therefore, the land within the boundaries of the ordinance is under a threat of condemnation. Since State Road Dept. v. Chicone, 148 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 2d Dist. 1962), any lessening in the value of the property caused by the “threat of condemnation” must be disregarded in determining full compensation. Accordingly, it is the ruling of this court that the city of Miami’s “Base Building Lines”…
-
Aritta Gleason v. State Rd. Dep't of Fla., 178 So. 2d 199 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)…ty as there was excluded from consideration by the jury other matters which represented actual losses sustained by Appellee because of the taking of their property for public purposes.” This court, in State Road Department v. Chicone, Fla.App.1962, 148 So. 2d 532, upheld the granting of a new trial because the trial court felt that evidence concerning a decrease in the value of the land caused by an impending taking should not be admitted on a question of value. In State Road Department v. Chicone, Fla.1963…
Authorities Cited
- Sunday v. Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co., 62 Fla. 395 (Fla. 1911)