A short one from the Florida District Court of Appeals, Florida Dep't of Transportation v. Mallards Cove, LLP, No. 2D13-181 (Mar. 6, 2015), a regulatory takings case that followed on the heels of a straight condemnation.
The DOT condemned property belonging to Mallards Cove via Florida's quick take procedure, by which certain agencies may obtain immediate possession and title, provided they deposit a good faith estimate of the land's value with the clerk of the court. Under Florida law, the property owner's right to just compensation is then vested, and two weeks later, the property owner withdrew the $2 million deposit. While the funds were on deposit, he clerk invested it, and under a Florida statute, 90% of the interest went to the DOT. The eminent domain case wrapped up, with the owner agreeing that the final judgment represented full compensation for the property taken.
But the owner wasn't finished: it filed a separate lawsuit, alleging the interest the clerk earned on the deposit was its property, and that the DOT and the clerk took that property without just compensation. The trial court agreed, because the deposit vested in the owner, meaning that the interest also became its property.
The court of appeals, however, disagreed, holding that while interest is a component of just compensation, the interest in this case was not "property."
First, the judgment in the eminent domain case was final, and the property owner could not, in effect, seek additional compensation in a second action.
Second, the court rejected the owner's claim that its property interest in the interest was separate from its property interest in the land taken, and that since its interest in the deposit vested immediately, the interest earned on the deposit also belonged to it. The court concluded that condemnees' rights are indeed vested upon the deposit, but that the right is one to full compensation, not the right to the specific funds on deposit.
Having determined that, the prior eminent domain judgment meant the case was over. A decision somewhat governed by semantics, because if the owner indeed had the right to compensation immediately upon deposit, it should also have the right to the time value of that compensation from that point forward. The only question we have is whether the outcome might have been different had the owner not stipulated in the eminent domain case that it was fully satisfied, but had pursued the claim for interest there.
Florida Dep't of Transportation v. Mallards Cove, LLP, No. 2D13-181 (Fla. App. Mar. 6, 2015)
