Case Name: ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, Appellant, v. Coy A. KOONTZ, Jr., etc., Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2003-12-17
Citations: 861 So. 2d 1267
Docket Number: No. 5D02-4066
Parties: ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, Appellant, v. Coy A. KOONTZ, Jr., etc., Appellee.
Judges: THOMPSON and ORFINGER, JJ„ concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 861
Pages: 1267–1272

Head Matter:
ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, Appellant, v. Coy A. KOONTZ, Jr., etc., Appellee.
No. 5D02-4066.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Dec. 17, 2003.
William H. Congdon, Palatka, for appellant.
Michael D. Jones of Michael D. Jones, P.A., Winter Springs, for appellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
This is a case claiming inverse condemnation of property by the St. Johns River Water Management District. The trial court entered judgment for the land owner, finding the acts and conduct of the District amounted to an unreasonable exercise of its police power. The District appealed. We dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Although the order entered below was labeled a "Final Judgment," it was not a final order. A final order is one which does not contemplate further judicial labor. McGurn v. Scott, 596 So.2d 1042 (Fla.1992). The instant order expressly contemplated further judicial labor when it remanded the matter to St. Johns Water Management District for further action pursuant to subsection 373.617(3), Florida Statutes. That subsection states:
If the court determines the decision reviewed is an unreasonable exercise of the state's police power constituting a taking without just compensation, the court shall remand the matter to the agency which shall, within a reasonable time:
(a) Agree to issue the permit;
(b) Agree to pay appropriate monetary damages; however, in determining the amount of compensation to be paid, consideration shall be given by the court to any enhancement to the value of the land attributable to governmental action; or
(c)Agree to modify its decision to avoid an unreasonable exercise of police power.
After the agency chooses one of these alternatives, the statute expressly requires further judicial labor, as follows:
(4) The agency shall submit a statement of its agreed-upon action to the court in the form of a proposed order. If the action is a reasonable exercise of police power, the court shall enter its final order approving the proposed order. If the agency fails to submit a proposed order within a reasonable time not to exceed 90 days which specifies an action that is a reasonable exercise of police power, the court may order the agency to perform any of the alternatives specified in subsection (3).
§ 373.617(4), Fla. Stat. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
THOMPSON and ORFINGER, JJ" concur.
PLEUS, J., concurs, and concurs specially, with opinion.
. We also note that the order was not an appealable non-final order. See Osceola County v. Best Diversified, Inc., 830 So.2d 139 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002).