Case Name: Joseph AMERKAN, Appellant, v. CITY OF HIALEAH, Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1988-11-22
Citations: 534 So. 2d 796
Docket Number: No. 87-133
Parties: Joseph AMERKAN, Appellant, v. CITY OF HIALEAH, Florida, Appellee.
Judges: Before BARKDULL, HUBBART and DANIEL S. PEARSON, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 534
Pages: 796–798

Head Matter:
Joseph AMERKAN, Appellant, v. CITY OF HIALEAH, Florida, Appellee.
No. 87-133.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Nov. 22, 1988.
Rehearing Denied Dec. 28, 1988.
Ferdie & Gouz and Ainslee Ferdie, Coral Gables, for appellant.
Paul, Landy, Beiley & Harper and Robert M. Sondak, Miami, for appellee.
Before BARKDULL, HUBBART and DANIEL S. PEARSON, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the defendant Joseph Amerkan from a final judgment entered upon a jury verdict in an eminent domain action. Amerkan raises various points on appeal to upset the award of $200,000 which he received for the taking of his property on the theory that the award was inadequate. We conclude that none of these points rise to the level of reversible error and only one requires discussion.
Amerkan contends that the trial court erred in dismissing his counterclaim and in granting the City of Hialeah's motion in limine at the outset of the trial below. These orders precluded Amerkan from seeking to recover, as business damages, two years of lost rental income which Am-erkan claims he would have collected had there not been a two-year delay between the City's notice to Amerkan's tenant, the Daisy Boutique, that it intended to condemn Amerkan's property and the actual institution of condemnation proceedings. It appears, without dispute, that the City, pursuant to HUD regulations and 42 U.S.C. § 4622(a), was required to give such notice to the Daisy Boutique, which leased retail space on Amerkan's property, of the impending condemnation action and the availability of federal relocation assistance. Subsequently, the Daisy Boutique did relocate to a nearby location; because of the threat of condemnation, Amerkan was unable to replace the tenant and claims this lost rent as business damages. We conclude that the trial court was eminently correct in dismissing the aforesaid claim.
It is well settled in Florida that business damages do not constitute part of the constitutionally protected concept of "just" or "fair" compensation in an eminent domain proceeding — although the legislature, by statute, may allow for such damages. Jamesson v. Downtown Dev. Auth. of Ft. Lauderdale, 322 So.2d 510, 511 (Fla.1975); State Road Dept. v. Bramlett, 189 So.2d 481, 484 (Fla.1966); State, Dept. of Transp. v. Fortune Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 507 So.2d 1172, 1176 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987), quashed on other grounds, 532 So.2d 1267 (Fla.1988); City of Miami v. Coconut Grove Marine Properties, Inc., 358 So.2d 1151, 1154 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 372 So.2d 932 (Fla.1979). Section 73.071(3)(b), Florida Statutes (1985), provides in pertinent part that compensation for business damages may be awarded in an eminent domain proceeding "[wjhere less than the entire property is sought to be appropriated...." Accordingly, lost rent and other profits are not recoverable in an eminent domain proceeding where, as here, there has been a total taking of the owner's property. Metropolitan Dade County v. Curelli, Douglas, McClaskey, Collins, 511 So.2d 602, 603 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (citing Tampa-Hillsborough County Expressway Auth. v. K.E. Morris Alignment Serv., Inc., 444 So.2d 926 (Fla.1983), rev. denied, 520 So.2d 585 (Fla.1988)); Division of Admin., State Dept. of Transp. v. Grant Motor Co., 345 So.2d 843, 845 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); Guarria v. State Road Dept., 117 So.2d 5, 6 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960). Amerkan was therefore not entitled to recover his business damage losses in this eminent domain proceeding involving a total taking of his property.
Nor can there be any viable claim, as urged, for tortious interference with the landowner's contractual relation with the Daisy Boutique. This is so because, as previously noted, the City of Hialeah was legally required by 42 U.S.C. § 4622(a) and the implementing HUD regulations [24 C.F.R. § 42.205] to give notice of the impending condemnation to the Daisy Boutique and therefore cannot possibly be held liable for giving such notice and thus interfering with American's lease contract with the Daisy Boutique; any such interference was obviously a legally justified one which, by definition, negates one of the essential elements of this tort, namely, that the alleged interference must be an unjustified interference. See, e.g., Nitzberg v. Zalesky, 370 So.2d 389 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Symon v. J. Rolfe Davis, Inc., 245 So.2d 278 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 249 So.2d 36 (Fla.1971).
Affirmed.
HUBBART and DANIEL S. PEARSON, JJ., concur.