Laserfiche WebLink
Because Mr. Checca's and Mr. Carney's testimony regarding the probability of obtaining <br /> the permits necessary for development of the property was based on pure speculation, it should <br /> have been excluded. Cf. Yoder, 81 So. 2d at 221 (holding it is improper to speculate on what <br /> could be done to the land or what might be done to it to make it more valuable and then solicit <br /> evidence on what it might be worth with such speculative improvements at some unannounced <br /> future date); City Nat'l Bank, 715 So. 2d at 352 (concluding that trial court properly excluded <br /> conceptual site plan from evidence where it was "speculative whether the County ever would <br /> have agreed to it in its proposed form"). This erroneously admitted opinion testimony was <br /> crucial for the jury to conclude that the property could have been developed into a private <br /> docking facility and to therefore award Respondent $795,000 in severance damages. As such, <br /> Petitioner should be granted a new trial. <br /> C. Respondent's witnesses presented speculative testimony regarding Respondent's <br /> ability to successfully undergo required environmental impact mitigation at some unknown <br /> off-site location. <br /> During Respondent's case-in-chief, Mr. Checca acknowledged that in order to develop <br /> the subject property, Respondent would have to undergo environmental impact mitigation either <br /> at an off-site or on-site location, or make a monetary donation to the Biscayne Bay Enhancement <br /> Program. Trial T. 696. For off-site mitigation to be possible, Respondent would have to enter <br /> into an agreement with a third-party owner of off-site property. Trial T. 696. Yet Respondent <br /> presented no testimony that any such agreements had ever been considered by Respondent, much <br /> less that they had negotiated or entered into any such agreements, or obtained the approval of the <br /> governmental agency responsible for approving mitigation agreements. <br /> Similarly, Mr. Carney testified that he assumed that Respondent would be able to either <br /> secure off-site environmental mitigation at Oleta River State Park or engage in mitigation <br /> 7 <br /> ii <br />