Blogs & Resources

Roadwork and other governmental projects are prevalent in Florida and often require the government to acquire private property. Both the Florida Constitution and the United States Constitution provide that no private property shall be taken for a public purpose without full compensation. A land owner’s constitutional right to full compensation for property taken by the government includes the ability to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees in the process. JEA v. Williams. The ability to recover attorneys’ fees, even in pre-suit negotiations, is an important consideration for owners when dealing with a government entity seeking to acquire the owner’s real property.

Ownership of waterfront property is very desirable in Florida and often involves unique real property considerations. But when we discuss waterfront property in Florida, one of the most attractive and most sought-out features is an incredible water view. When it comes to private waterfront property ownership, it can be difficult to distinguish where the private land rights cease and the sovereign land ownership begins. More difficult is when your neighbor begins construction or activity that actually blocks your waterfront view. As a result, a subset of real property law has emerged to address what is called “riparian rights.”

Real property rights in the United States and in Florida are constitutionally protected. In Florida, Article X of the Florida Constitution protects a “taking” of one’s private property without just or full compensation. When government action results in a “taking” of private property, such action results in eminent domain or inverse condemnation claims. The focus of this post is inverse condemnation claims.

In Florida, recovery of attorneys’ fees in eminent domain and inverse condemnation proceedings is governed by Sections 73.091 and 73.092 of the Florida Statutes. Section 73.092 provides a mechanism for determining an award of attorney fees, based on the “benefits achieved for the client.” But, what if the state agency/condemning authority excessively litigated the case, such that the formulaic computation under that statute was unfair to the property owner? A recent Florida Supreme Court case addressed this issue. Joseph B. Doerr Trust v. Central Florida Expressway Authority.

This blog post is part V in a series of posts to assist private property owners with protecting their property interests and rights in eminent domain actions and government takings. Part I provided a general overview of eminent domain and the government’s ability to take private property for public use. Part II discussed Florida law on the allowable scope for the taking of private property, which is determined by the element of reasonable necessity. Part III addressed regulatory takings, and Part IV explained how “just compensation” is determined. The fifth and final addition to this series concerns a property owner’s entitlement to attorney’s fees in eminent domain proceedings.

This blog post is part IV in a series of posts to assist private property owners with protecting their property interests and rights in eminent domain actions and government takings. Part I provided a general overview of eminent domain and the government’s ability to take private property for public use. Part II discussed Florida law on the allowable scope for the taking of private property, which is determined by the element of reasonable necessity. Part III addressed regulatory takings. This post will discuss “just compensation” and how it is determined.

This blog post is part III in a series of posts to assist private property owners with protecting their property interests and rights in eminent domain actions and government takings. Part I provided a general overview of eminent domain and the government’s ability to take private property for public use. Part II discussed Florida law on the allowable scope for the taking of private property, which is determined by the element of reasonable necessity. This post will address regulatory takings that affect private property rights.

This blog post is part II in a series of posts to assist private property owners with protecting their property interests and rights in eminent domain actions and government takings. Part I provided a general overview of eminent domain actions and the government’s ability to take private property for public use. Future posts in this series will provide further insight into various issues concerning eminent domain actions, such as maximizing just compensation and the ability to recover attorney’s fees. This post discusses Florida law on determining the allowable scope for the taking of private property by a government entity.

“Change is inevitable – except from a vending machine”—Robert C. Gallagher. The history of human civilization has taught us that change through new land development is constant and a never ending occurrence. Sure, land development ebbs and flows with economic cycles, but new construction can always be found somewhere at any given time. With land development comes the need for new and expanded infrastructure, involving government action at some level. Private citizens, whose property is in the crosshairs of government development plans, will receive notice that all or part of their property is subject to governmental taking — the proverbial offer that you can’t refuse. Yet, thanks to the U.S. Constitution, private citizens are not without rights here. This blog post is part I in a series of posts to assist private property owners with protecting their property interests, maximizing just compensation and ensuring entitlement to attorney’s fees in eminent domain actions and government takings.

Representing real estate developers, we are often asked how damages are calculated when the State of Florida takes a building in eminent domain. The answer is that it depends (don’t you love lawyerly answers?), but for the most basic scenario, we’ll analyze a taking that will require destruction of the entire building and for round numbers, we’ll say that the building has a fair market value of one million dollars. In short, under applicable Florida statutes and case law, fair market value of land and any additional factor impacting the value of the condemned property are factors to determine full compensation. The specific facts of the case will determine if any other applicable compensation is awarded.