Case Title: Florida East Coast Railway Co. v. Martin County

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: florida

Court: Florida Supreme Court

Date: 1965-01-20T00:00:00Z

Document:
171 So. 2d 873 (1965)
FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY COMPANY, a Florida corporation, Appellant,
v.
MARTIN COUNTY, a Political Subdivision of the State of Florida, et al., Appellees.
No. 32970.

Supreme Court of Florida.
January 20, 1965.
Rehearing Denied March 15, 1965.
*874 John B. L'Engle, Jacksonville, and Sumner & Sumner, Ft. Pierce, for appellant.
Dean Tooker, Stuart, for appellees.
HOBSON, Justice (Ret.)
The appellee Martin County brought this condemnation suit against the Florida East Coast Railway Company and its mortgagees in the Circuit Court of the Ninth Judicial Circuit, in and for Martin County, Florida, for the purpose of acquiring a public easement fifty feet in width. Martin County proposed to locate a public county road over the railroad's tracks.
All of the matters in controversy between Martin County and the Florida East Coast Railway Co., et al., except for the amount of damages for the taking, were decided, without a jury, by the trial Judge Honorable C. Pfeiffer Trowbridge in favor of Martin County and against Florida East Coast Railway Co., et al. Trial by jury was had upon the issue of damages to the Florida East Coast Railway Co., et al.
Appellant being aggrieved by several of the rulings of the trial judge as well as the entry of the final judgment instituted an appeal to the District Court of Appeal, Second District, which Court, after determining that jurisdiction of this case on appeal was in the Supreme Court of Florida, entered an order transferring the cause to this Court.
Counsel for appellant contend that there are nine points involved on this appeal. They state and argue them in the sequence of time at which they arose. We will now attempt to state these nine points and thereafter discuss those points which we deem worthy of serious consideration.
Point No. 1 raises the question whether it was error for the trial court to deny the Railway's motion to dismiss directed to the petition and its exhibits. It is said that the petition and exhibits failed to show that the easement sought to be taken was for a lawful public purpose.
Point No. 2 is a challenge to the order of the trial judge denying the motion to strike filed by the Florida East Coast Railway Co., which order bears date October 10, 1962. The motion to strike was directed to five WHEREAS paragraphs of the resolution of the Board of County Commissioners which was annexed to and made a part of the petition filed by Martin County. It is urged that the matters contained in the five WHEREAS paragraphs are irrelevant and immaterial.
Point No. 3 assails the order of the trial court entered November 30th, 1962, granting Martin County's motion to strike designated parts of the Railway's answer. The portions of the answer which were stricken were allegations of special damages: "(a) the cost of grading and paving, and annual cost of maintenance of the grade crossing, and (b) cost of installation of automatic crossing protection devices  flashing lights, bells, and gates, and maintenance of same, *875 all alleged to be reasonably necessary to reduce the great hazards and dangers to persons and property using the proposed grade crossing * * *".
Point No. 4 is directed to the order on petition and answer entered by the trial court on February 20, 1963. The effect of this order was that Martin County had established its right to proceed with the condemnation of the easement sought, notwithstanding the Railway's contention that Martin County was without power to acquire the easement because of the hazards to life, limb and property that would be presented by a grade crossing at the site prayed at M.P. 260 plus 122 feet, and material interference with interstate commerce.
Point No. 5 raises the query whether the trial judge erred when he overruled objections to certain photographs and testimony depicting safety conditions at established public road grade crossings distant from site of the proposed public road grade crossing.
Point No. 6 poses the question whether the trial court erred in overruling a challenge for cause requested by counsel for the Railway Company directed toward a juror who admitted that he had seen and heard as a spectator the "last hour" of the trial before the court without a jury.
Point No. 7 directs our attention to the refusal of the trial judge to include in the Judgment for Costs the full amount of $3,355.54, which was testified to as being a fair and reasonable fee for the services of the civil engineer who qualified as an expert witness and testified for the Railway Company in support of certain affirmative defenses but he did not testify with reference to the value of the easement sought to be taken. The trial judge allowed this expert witness $1,438.25, instead of $3,355.54. Appellant contends that the latter and higher amount should have been allowed. On the other hand by a cross-assignment of error the appellee, Martin County, insists that the trial judge erred in allowing any fee for this witness.
Point No. 8 is an assault by appellant Railway Company upon the trial court's failure to tax as costs the sum of $192.25, which sum was paid by the Railway Company to the court reporter for a carbon copy of the Transcript of Testimony and copy of a deposition admitted in evidence.
Point No. 9 presents a question which is of great interest to most, if not all, practicing attorneys. The question is one of reasonable attorney fees. Two qualified attorneys testified respectively to $10,000.00 and $9,000.00 as reasonable attorney fees to be allowed the Railway Company for the services of its attorneys in this case. There was no other testimony upon this subject and the trial judge allowed the sum of $6,000.00 as attorney fees. Counsel for the Railway Company say the allowance should not have been less, under the facts and circumstances, than $9,000.00, while counsel for Martin County insist that the fee allowed by the trial court of $6,000.00 should, by this Court, be substantially reduced.
We turn now to a discussion of these nine points which have been presented by appellant for our consideration.
Points 1 and 2 will be treated together. We have examined the petition and have determined that it is not fatally defective and that the motion to dismiss said petition was properly denied. The petition complies with the requirements of Section 73.01, Florida Statutes, F.S.A. Counsel for appellant have apparently confused necessary allegations with ultimate essential proof. It is true, as contended by appellant, that property condemned for a public road or easement must be a connecting link between public roads or properties. They have cited many of our decisions to this effect. The statute, however, does not require the petition to allege on this point anything more than the following: "The authority under which, and the public use to which the property is to be acquired, *876 and that the property is necessary for that use;". The appellant had the right to challenge the allegation of a valid public purpose as a matter of fact and the record discloses that it did just that. After a trial before the court without a jury on this issue, appellant was unsuccessful.
Appellant contends that the description of the property or easement sought to be condemned was insufficient, but we find that said description complies with Section 73.01 (2), Florida Statutes, F.S.A., in that it is sufficient for the identification by appellant or any other interested person of the easement sought to be acquired.
With reference to the "WHEREAS" clauses, suffice it to say that although they may not have been absolutely essential they are not wholly irrelevant and immaterial because they are a part of the public records kept by the Board of County Commissioners to serve to inform the public of the Board's actions and the reasons for its actions. Moreover, it appears to us that it is entirely proper for the Court, as well as the condemnee, to be advised of the findings which motivated the Board of County Commissioners.
We find no merit in appellant's contention that because the survey map (petitioner's Exhibit 6) includes both Alice Avenue West and the easement to be condemned, this exhibit proves that Alice Avenue West in fact is not public.
In his order of November 30th, 1962, the trial judge stated that the question which is the subject matter of appellant's Point No. 3 "appears to be one of first impression in the State of Florida." We agree with this observation.
The order entered by the presiding judge is quite lengthy. We will not quote it in full but will attempt to summarize the reasons for his conclusion and determination that the motion to strike should be granted.
In his order, the judge recognized the fact that the decisions in other jurisdictions are not uniform. He found, however, the majority rule to be against appellant's contention.
The decision upon which he strongly relied is the one by the Supreme Court of the United States in Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company v. Chicago, 166 U.S. 226, at page 255, 17 S. Ct. 581, at page 592, 41 L. Ed. 979. The United States Supreme Court in its opinion stated:
Appellant argues somewhat forcefully that the decision in the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad case, which was rendered in the year 1897, should not be applied in this era of modernity; that there were few motor vehicles in existence prior to the turn of the century and offered statistics to show the tremendous volume of vehicular traffic in this nation and particularly in the State of Florida at *877 the time of the trial. Moreover, counsel for appellant insist that the Supreme Court of Florida has been liberal in its construction of our constitutional provisions as well as our statutory law which provide for "full" and "just" compensation to the owner of land which is taken in any eminent domain proceeding.
We realize that this Court has demonstrated a tendency toward liberality in construing the words "just" and "full" compensation. Consequently, we are impelled to say to counsel for appellant that which was stated by King Agrippa to the Apostle Paul, Acts 26:28, "Almost Thou persuadest [us] * * *."
In Dade County v. Brigham, (Fla.) 47 So. 2d 602, 18 A.L.R.2d 1221, we approved the inclusion in the judgment of the reasonable fees paid by the condemnee to expert witnesses who testified to the value of the land sought to be taken. We were of the view, and still are, that a property owner whose land is taken from him upon the theory of a genuine public need therefor does not receive "just" or "full" compensation if he is required to pay such expert witnesses from the monies received for the value of his land and that upon the issue with reference to the value of the land sought to be taken he should be accorded the right to meet the condemning authority upon an equal footing without loss to himself.
Again, in Jacksonville Expressway Authority v. Henry DuPree Co., (Fla.) 108 So. 2d 289, 699 A.L.R.2d 1445, we allowed the moving costs occasioned the condemnee by virtue of the eminent domain proceeding. In that case we said:
In Brigham, we adopted as our own the language of the Circuit Judge who wrote:
We do not recede from Brigham or DuPree, but we do feel that in those cases we probably went the last mile, so to speak.
We are of the opinion, as was the learned circuit judge, that the reasoning of the United States Supreme Court in Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. Chicago, supra, is as sound and logical today as it was when it was written. It is true now as then that: "The expenses that will be incurred by the railroad company in erecting gates, planking the crossing, and maintaining flagmen, in order that its road may be safely operated,  if all that should be required,  necessarily result from the maintenance of a public highway under legislative sanction, and must be deemed to have been taken by the company into account when it accepted the privileges and franchises granted by the state. Such expenses must be regarded as incidental to the exercise of the police powers of the state." We think that the expenses which the railroad might be put to in grading and paving and maintaining the crossing and the costs of installation of automatic crossing protection devices is a matter which the company should have taken "into account when it accepted the privileges and franchises granted by the state," and that such expenses are the result of the exercise of the police powers of the state and do not, under all the facts and circumstances, "bear a reasonable relationship to the loss occasioned the owner by virtue of the taking of [its] property under the right of eminent domain."
*878 The able circuit judge said:
We agree.
Everyone knows, as appellant contends, that there is more vehicular traffic of various types today than there was Circa 1897; that there are more people in this State than there were at the end of the Nineteenth Century, and that there has been a tremendous upswing generally in Florida's economy. It appears logical and reasonable to assume that there has also been a great increase in the revenue of the appellant Railway. Forgetting this assumption, the facts above stated do not justify or support appellant's argument that the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. Chicago, 166 U.S. 226, 17 S. Ct. 581, is outmoded and should not be applied under present day conditions. This is so because the theory underlying the subject decision of the United States Supreme Court, which theory was adopted by the trial judge in this case and approved herein by this Court, is that these alleged special damages are expenses which "must be regarded as incidental to the exercise of the police powers of the state" and do not amount to "a loss due to the taking."
In connection with Appellant's Point No. 4, we have decided to quote from and adopt as our own the major portion of the Order entered by the trial judge which demonstrates that he gave a great deal of study and careful consideration to this point. We quote from said Order as follows:
I. BAD FAITH
II. GROSS ABUSE OF DISCRETION
We find upon careful consideration of the briefs and after having heard arguments of counsel that there is no merit to appellant's Point No. 5, nor to appellant's Point No. 6.
As we have previously noted, this Court in Dade County v. Brigham, (Fla.) 47 So. 2d 602, approved the allowance in the judgment in an eminent domain proceeding of reasonable fees paid by the condemnee to expert witnesses who testified to the value of the land to be taken. Under Point No. 7, we are faced with an entirely different question in this case. Melvin A. Connor did not testify as an expert witness with reference to the value of the easement sought to be taken, but only in connection with the affirmative defenses of the appellant.
We hold the view that the fees of witnesses who testify in support of affirmative defenses as did Mr. Connor should be assessed as costs exactly as costs are assessed in all other civil actions and should not be included in the judgment entered pursuant to the verdict of the jury.
We do not find, as suggested by Point No. 8, any error in the refusal of the trial judge to tax as part of the costs the charges for copies of the transcripts of testimony and for a copy of the deposition used by Appellant Railway.
With reference to the allowance of $6,000.00 attorney fees for appellant's attorneys, we do not discern an abuse of sound judicial discretion. As is contended by appellant in Point No. 9, it is true that the only testimony with reference to reasonable attorney fees was in one instance $9,000.00, and in another $10,000.00. Although testimony with reference to reasonable attorney fees may and in most cases should be heard and considered it is not binding upon the court particularly in a case wherein the judge who fixes the fees presided throughout the entire proceeding in the nisi prius court. He is usually in a better position than are the lawyers who testify as expert witnesses to know the amount of work necessarily done and the complexities of the legal problems involved. We find no reason to disturb the somewhat liberal allowance of $6,000.00 as and for attorney fees. Indeed, had it not been for the affirmative defenses unsuccessfully urged by the appellant this suit would have been an ordinary and usual every day eminent domain proceeding. It must be remembered, however, that the appellant had the right to challenge the assertion of a public need for the easement sought to be condemned and also the right to set up affirmative defenses. No court has declared such defenses *884 to be frivolous, although the Circuit Court and this Court found them to be devoid of merit.
The judgment from which this appeal was prosecuted is affirmed except the portion thereof which allowed expert witness fees to those witnesses who testified only in support of appellant's affirmative defenses and who did not testify with reference to the value of the easement sought to be taken.
Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
DREW, C.J., and ROBERTS, THORNAL, O'CONNELL and ERVIN, JJ., concur.
THOMAS, J., dissents because the Court is without jurisdiction.