Reso 2015-2445 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1963). To that end, Florida courts have consistently ruled that the amount of compensation to be awarded to a property owner when his property is sought to be taken in an eminent domain proceeding is the value of the land taken at the time of the lawful appropriation. See, e.g., Yoder v. Sarasota Cnty., 81 So. 2d 219, 220-21 (Fla. 1955). It is appropriate to show the uses to which the property was or might reasonably be applied, and the damages, if any, to adjacent lands. Id. at 221. However, the value must be established in light of these elements as of the time of the lawful appropriation. Id. Indeed, it is not proper to speculate on what could be done to the land or what might be done to it to make it more valuable and then solicit evidence on what it might be worth with such speculative improvements at some unannounced future date. Id. "To permit such evidence would open a flood-gate of speculation and conjecture that would convert an eminent domain proceeding into a guessing contest." Id. (holding evidence as to what the land would be worth if properly filled for a particular use stated to be the most profitable use for which the land was adaptable was inadmissible); accord City Nat'l Bank of Fla. v. Dade Cnty., 715 So. 2d 350, 352- 53 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (holding trial court properly granted motion in limine excluding owner's conceptual site plan when owner never submitted the site plan to the county for approval); Fla. Dep't of Transp. v. Target Corp., 937 So. 2d 703, 706 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (holding trial court erred in denying petitioner's motion in limine to exclude respondent's site plan when respondent had not included the disputed site plan in its original submittal to the city or taken any affirmative steps toward fulfilling the plan); Jacksonville Transp. Auth. v. ACS Assocs., 559 So. 2d 330, 334 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) (warning parties to avoid introduction of speculative evidence regarding future use of property, including conceptual plans, improvements, or developments which might be made at some unannounced future date, during retrial upon remand). 5