Reso 2015-2445 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

A. Well, I've been—with my conversations with Mr. — Q. Checca? A. -- Checca. Trial T. 751-52. Thus, Mr. Newstreet had no independent knowledge of whether there were sufficient uplands to develop the property into a private docking facility. In sum, not only did Mr. Checca's and Mr. Newstreet's testimony on this issue amount to pure speculation, but it was also contrary to the parties' acknowledgement that the parent tract included only submerged lands and no uplands. Yoder, 81 So. 2d at 221. Because the jury had to conclude that sufficient upland property was available to Respondent in order to decide that Respondent's development plan was feasible, such speculative testimony must have tainted the jury's verdict. The witnesses' testimony failed to acknowledge the fact that the adjacent building's condominium association created under Chapter 718, Florida Statutes, would be the applicant in any zoning application for the private dockage facility if it provides upland access. No such evidence was presented that the board of directors of the condominium association had ever discussed being. an applicant for a private dockage facility. For this reason as well, a new trial should be granted. E. Respondent's witnesses were permitted to testify that the 46 boat slips could be sold to Winston Tower condominium unit owners, despite the fact that they had no factual support for that assertion. Perhaps the most flagrant speculative evidence that the court allowed to reach the jury was a conceptual site plan depicting 46 boat slips, addressed in subsection III.F. below, combined with the testimony of Mr. Checca and Mr. Newstreet which asserted that that the 46 boat slips could have been sold to the Winston Towers Condominium Association unit owners. Other than the unsubstantiated opinion testimony from these witnesses, there was no factual 10