Petrogram - Winter 2008 - (Page 35) BARRISTER’S COUNSEL Business Damages Arising out of Condemnation Proceedings System Components Corporation v. Department of Transportation n September 17, the Supreme Court of Florida agreed to review the decision of the Fifth District Court of Appeal in System Components Corporation v. Department of Transportation. In that case, the Department of Transportation (DOT) Mike Huey brought a condemnation proceeding to acquire a portion of System Components Corporation’s (System Components) property for road expansion. The trial court entered a judgment upon a jury verdict awarding statutory business damages based on the total value of the business on the date of the taking, mitigated by the relocation and continued operation of the business on a nearby site. System Components is a wholesale distributor of fluid purification control and instrumentation. It owned two lots consisting of 1.774 acres with a 5,000-square-foot building on one of the lots. The building served as office and warehouse space for the company. The second lot was held for expansion purposes. After the condemnation, the remaining portion of the building and land were not suitable for System Components’ continued operation at the site. System Components acquired another site nearby for its continued business at the new location. System Components appealed the trial court’s judgment contending that it was entitled to recover the total value of the business as if the business had ceased to exist. At trial, the judge instructed the jury to determine the total value of the business as of the date of the taking and to also determine the value of the business as mitigated by its relocation and continued operation at a nearby location. These values were $2,394,964 and $1,347,911, respectively. The trial judge awarded the lower value holding that System Components’ business damages arising from the taking were mitigated by the company reopening at another nearby location. The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed this decision in July of this year. The Supreme Court of Florida has jurisdiction to review issues when there is a conflict of opinions between state district courts of appeal. In the System Components case, the company relied upon a case decided by the Fourth District Court of Appeal O – Department of Transportation v. Tire Centers, LLC. In the Tire Centers case, the company owned 2.9 acres, a significant portion of which was condemned by DOT for highway improvements. The taking required the demolition of the company’s building, and the company relocated on a nearby site. At trial, DOT attempted to introduce evidence that Tire Centers was able to relocate on the nearby site thus mitigating the business damages from the taking of the former site. The difference between the “total” business damages versus the “mitigated” business damages in this case was approximately $1,000,000. The trial court held that Tire Centers was entitled to the “total” business damages and that its damages were not mitigated because the company was able to procure another site and continue its business. The Fourth District Court of Appeal agreed, holding that the duty of mitigation should only apply to mitigation on the site being condemned. The Court held that the taking of the specific parcel being condemned is the sole focus of business damages and that a condemning authority may not argue that these business damages of the company operating at that location are mitigated by the ability of the business owner to relocate its business at another site. Business owners have a very real interest in the Florida Supreme Court’s review of the System Components Corporation case. DOT will be arguing that the Florida Legislature only intended that business owners be paid a “fair amount” for business damages arising from the taking of their business property, and if the owner elects to relocate its business, such continuation of the business must mitigate the damage amount. Petrogram | Winter 2008 | 35 Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Petrogram - Winter 2008 Petrogram - Winter 2008 Contents Chairman’s Communiqué President’s Perspective Industry Insights FPMA Patron Members C-Store Tidbits Caution! Leases Slippery When Unclear Out & About the Industry Enviro Corner Surviving Employee Theft Insurance Issues The Great Friday Gas Panic Barrister’s Counsel Public Notice Advertiser.com Index of Advertisers Petrogram - Winter 2008 http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/naylor/FPCQ0412 http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/naylor/FPCQ0312 http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/naylor/FPCQ0212 http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/naylor/FPCQ0112 http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/naylor/FPCQ0411 http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/naylor/FPCQ0311 http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/naylor/FPCQ0211 http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/naylor/FPCQ0111 http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/naylor/FPCQ0410 http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/naylor/FPCQ0310 http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/naylor/FPCQ0210 http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/naylor/FPCQ0110 http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/naylor/FPCQ0409 http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/naylor/FPCQ0309 http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/naylor/FPCQ0209 http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/naylor/FPCQ0109 http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/naylor/FPCQ0408 http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/naylor/FPCQ0308 http://www.nxtbookMEDIA.com
For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.