Case Name: The CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, Appellant, v. Amelia King BUCKLEY et al., Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1978-09-19
Citations: 363 So. 2d 360
Docket Number: No. 76-1911
Parties: The CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, Appellant, v. Amelia King BUCKLEY et al., Appellees.
Judges: Before HAYERFIELD, C. J., and HEN-DRY and HUBBART, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 363
Pages: 360–362

Head Matter:
The CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, Appellant, v. Amelia King BUCKLEY et al., Appellees.
No. 76-1911.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Sept. 19, 1978.
Rehearing Denied Nov. 3, 1978.
Joseph A. Wanick, City Atty., Reichen-thal & Weinstein, Miami, and Lee H. Schil-linger, Coral Gables, for appellant.
Fowler, White, Burnett, Hurley, Banick & Knight and George B. Foss, Jr., Carr & Emory, W. Frank Esslinger, Miami, for ap-pellees.
Before HAYERFIELD, C. J., and HEN-DRY and HUBBART, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The petitioner City of Miami Beach appeals a final judgment entered upon a jury verdict in favor of the defendant landowners herein in a condemnation action. The city urges that the trial court erred in its instructions to the jury. The record affirmatively shows that the city did not object to the jury instructions in the trial court, and, accordingly, we cannot consider the city's assignments of errors related to the giving of such instructions. Starkey v. Chew, 241 So.2d 870 (Fla.3rd DCA 1970); City of Miami Beach v. Belle Isle Apartment Corp., 177 So.2d 884 (Fla.3d DCA 1965). The city also urges as error certain trial court rulings concerning the introduction of evidence upon the issue of the probability of rezoning the condemned parcels of land as a factor in determining the valuation of the said land. We find no error in these rulings. Board of Commissioners of State Institutions v. Tallahassee Bank & Trust Co., 100 So.2d 67 (Fla.1st DCA 1958), cert. den. 116 So.2d 762 (Fla. 1959); Board of Commissioners of State Institutions v. Tallahassee Bank & Trust Co., 108 So.2d 74 (Fla.1st DCA 1958); Swift & Co. v. Housing Authority of Plant City, 106 So.2d 616 (Fla.2d DCA 1958). The city finally urges that the trial court erred in allowing the defendants to amend their pleadings to allege a probability of rezoning as a factor to be considered in the valuation of the condemned land. We find no error as the ruling was well within the trial court's discretion. Dixie Farms, Inc. v. Timmons, 323 So.2d 637 (Fla.3d DCA 1975); Trent v. Channel 10 WPLG-TV, Post-Newsweek Stations, Fla., Inc., 309 So.2d 631 (Fla.3d DCA 1975); Strickland v. St. Petersburg Auto Auction, Inc., 243 So.2d 603 (Fla.4th DCA 1971); Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.190(e).