Reso 2015-2445 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

[Respondent] didn't get 'em, it ain't coming in," in response to Petitioner's argument that Respondent's counsel "intends to offer at a minimum evidence about what third party agreements his client, his owner, could have gotten, should have gotten, may have gotten with some third party"); Trial T. 15 (in response to Petitioner's argument that "agreements [Respondent] could have gotten, covenants with one condominium association versus another that they could have gotten is entirely speculative," court stated, "Didn't I just say I'm not allowed something like that in?"); Trial T. 15 ("I know conjecture and speculation when I see it. I'm not going to allow it."). 4. In addition, on May 29, 2015, just three days before trial, former Respondent Jeffrey Tucker, Trustee ("Mr. Tucker"), through his counsel, without a timely motion or notice to the City, filed a Notice of Substitution of Party purportedly under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.260(c) wherein he substituted Karen Tucker ("Ms. Tucker") as the Respondent. In the Notice, Mr. Tucker stated that he had transferred his interest, as trustee, to a successor trustee, Ms. Tucker. Over the City's objection, the trial court permitted the eleventh-hour surprise substitution of Tucker as Respondent on the first day of trial. This late substitution was nothing more than an attempt to confuse the jury; indeed, Mr. Tucker was the owner of the underwater property on the date of valuation, i.e. December 17, 2012. 5. The jury ultimately awarded the full amount of the compensation sought: $60,000 by Respondent for the value of the property taken by the City, and $795,000 in severance damages. 6. For the reasons set forth below, Petitioner requests that either a new trial be granted or that Petitioner's request for remittitur be granted. 3