HENRY S. KIRKPATRICK AND EDITH B. KIRKPATRICK, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
CITY OF JACKSONVILLE, THROUGH ITS DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, AND DUVAL TITLE AND ABSTRACT COMPANY, A CORPORATION, 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 Kirkpatricks appealed a favorable judgment in an inverse condemnation action against Jacksonville, arguing the trial court erred in excluding evidence of their property's tax-assessed value to rebut the City's expert testimony on property valuation. The appellate court affirmed, finding the tax assessment evidence distinguishable from prior case law and the appeal inadequately supported by an incomplete trial record.
The court did not consider the point well taken. The case law cited by appellants (Trad v. City of Jacksonville) was distinguishable because Trad involved a total taking where the property assessment was relevant to the entire parcel value, whereas here the jury considered only the value of improvements, and the tax assessment was not broken down between land and buildings. Additionally, the incomplete appellate record precluded meaningful review.
[1] Tax assessments are not admissible into evidence as admissions against interest of a condemning authority when the assessment does not distinguish between the value of la…
[2] An appellant may not present an error for appellate consideration on an incomplete record if the omitted matter might affect the determination of the error by the reviewi…
Previewing 2 of 2 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“Trad dealt with a total taking so that the property assessment was relevant in considering the value of the entire parcel, including both land and improvements. Here the jury had for its consideration only the value of improvements, and the tax assessment was not broken down as to the value of both the land and the buildings.”
Establishes the court's distinction between the cited precedent and the instant case, explaining why tax assessment evidence was admissible in Trad but not necessarily here.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Kirkpatricks brought an inverse condemnation action against the City of Jacksonville. The trial court entered a final judgment in their favor. The…
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 Incomplete Appellate Record cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The Kirkpatricks appeal a final judgment entered in their favor following an inverse condemnation action by them against the City. They raise several points, only one of which warrants special consideration, pertaining to the lower court's alleged error by refusing to allow them to introduce into evidence the assessed value of their property for tax purposes to rebut the City’s expert testimony as to its value, relying upon Trad v. City of Jacksonville, 279 So. 2d 384 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973), which held tax assessments are admissible into evidence as admissions against interest of the condemning authority. We do not consider the point well taken. Trad dealt with a total taking so that the property assessment was relevant in considering the value of the entire parcel, including both land and improvements. Here the jury had for its consideration only the value of improvements, and the tax assessment was not broken down as to the value of both the land and the buildings.
Additionally we do not have before us the transcription of the trial proceedings. The only transcript included within the record pertains to the hearing following trial as to the amount of attorney fees to be awarded. Consequently we have no way of discovering from the record the specific reason why the trial court disallowed the proffered exhibit. It has been held in countless cases that an appellant may not present an error for appellate consideration on an incomplete record if the omitted matter might affect the determination of the error by the reviewing court. E. g., Hodge v. State, 29 Fla. 500,10 So. 556 (1892); Albritton v. State, 54 Fla. 6, 44 So. 745 (1907); Nelson v. State, 85 So. 2d 832 (Fla.1956).
AFFIRMED.
MILLS and ERVIN, JJ., concur. BOYER, Acting C. J., concurring specially-
BOYER, Acting Chief Judge,
concurring specially.
I concur in affirmance for the reasons set forth in the concluding paragraph of the majority opinion. I do not agree that the Trad case is not here applicable.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Nelson v. State, 85 So. 2d 832 (Fla. 1956)
- Green W. Hodge v. State, 29 Fla. 500 (Fla. 1892)
- Albritton v. State, 54 Fla. 6 (Fla. 1907)
- Trad v. City OF Jacksonville, 279 So. 2d 384 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973)