Please read the Florida District Court of Appeal's opinion in City of Fort Lauderdale v. Hinton, No. 4D18-2089 (July 24, 2019), especially the part starting on page 9 (the opinion is only 12 pages), where the court frames one of the arguments made by the appellant, Fort Lauderdale:
"The City contends that the Hintons cannot state a sufficient claim for inverse condemnation because they cannot prove a permanent physical occupation of their land that effectively deprives them of all reasonable and beneficial use and enjoyment of the property." Slip op. at 9. Okay, we get that. The city didn't like the trial judge's ruling, and took an interlocutory appeal. No problem with that. Everyone is entitled to appeal.
But next, the city raised what we thought was an issue that really isn't up for debate: "Citing Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission v. Daws, 256 So. 3d 907 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018), the City maintains that, unless the takings claim is facially sufficient, it is barred by sovereign immunity." Say what? Takings claims that are not facially sufficient should be dismissed because they are not facially sufficient, not because of sovereign immunity. We're not even sure what the city meant by the argument.
Well, the court made short work of the argument: "Sovereign immunity does not exempt the State from a challenge based on violation of the federal or state constitutions, because any other rule self-evidently would make constitutional law subservient to the State’s will. Moreover, neither the common law nor a state statute can supersede a provision of the federal or state constitutions." Slip op. at 9-10.
The court also affirmed that the owners "pleaded a facially sufficient takings claim and material facts are in dispute," which meant the trial court correctly denied the city summary judgment. Slip op. at 10. the court correctly concluded that the property owners did not need to show that "all beneficial use or all value was destroyed," only that a "government action deprive[d] a property owner of 'substantially all economically beneficial or productive use of land.'" Slip op. at 10 (emphasis original) (citing Tampa-Hillsborough Cty. Expressway Auth. v. A.G.W.S. Corp., 640 So. 2d 54, 58 (Fla. 1994)).
And finally, what's up with the city's argument that a temporary taking isn't compensable? The court also summarily rejected that argument, relying on First English.
Why the city raised at least two arguments that appear to us to be so completely settled in law is beyond us.
City of Fort Lauderdale v. Hinton, No. 4D18-2089 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. July 24, 2019)
