Case Name: DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, State of Florida, Appellant, v. Joost P. ZYDERVELD, Trustee, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1994-12-16
Citations: 647 So. 2d 308
Docket Number: No. 93-428
Parties: DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, State of Florida, Appellant, v. Joost P. ZYDERVELD, Trustee, Appellee.
Judges: DIAMANTIS, J., concurs in result only.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 647
Pages: 308–311

Head Matter:
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, State of Florida, Appellant, v. Joost P. ZYDERVELD, Trustee, Appellee.
No. 93-428.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Dec. 16, 1994.
Thornton J. Williams, Gen. Counsel, and Thomas F. Capshew, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Tallahassee, for appellant.
Jay W. Small of Wilson, Leavitt & Small, P.A., Orlando, and Alan E. DeSerio of Brigh-ham, Moore, Gaylord, Ulmer & Schuster, Tampa, for appellee.

Opinion:
THOMPSON, Judge.
The Department of Transportation ("DOT") appeals the granting of a motion for summary judgment on liability entered in favor of Joost P. Zyderveld, Trustee ("Zyder-veld"). DOT also appeals the entry of a final judgment from an inverse condemnation award made to Zyderveld. We reverse.
The DOT filed and recorded a map of reservation for the planned realignment of State Road 434 in Seminole County. The map of reservation encompassed 3.637 acres of 23.363 acres of land owned by Zyderveld. This map of reservation was later withdrawn by DOT after the Florida Supreme Court declared that maps of reservation filed pursuant to section 337.241(2) and (3) were an unconstitutional taking without compensation. See Joint Ventures, Inc. v. Department of Transp., 563 So.2d 622 (Fla.1990). The trial court, relying upon the Florida Supreme Court's decision in Joint Ventures, entered an order granting the motion for summary judgment, finding that Zyderveld suffered a temporary taking. The order also provided that a jury trial would be scheduled "to determine the amount of full compensation to be paid by the Defendant [DOT] to Plaintiff, Joost P. Zyderveld, Trustee, for the temporary taking of the property rights described herein." The matter proceeded to trial on the issue of damages and the jury returned a total verdict of $445,000.00. Of that amount, $375,000.00 was for the temporary taking and $70,000.00 was for severance damages.
During the trial, the trial judge allowed Zyderveld's experts to testify to compensation based upon a temporary taking of the entire property. This testimony was strenuously objected to by DOT's attorneys who asked for a mistrial because there was no temporary taking of the entire parcel. The trial judge denied the motion. During DOT's presentation, the trial judge did not allow DOT to present testimony that only a portion of Zyderveld's property was temporarily taken and that Zyderveld suffered minimal damages since the damages only amounted to less than two percent of the value of the property and the property could still have been developed. DOT's expert proffered testimony, however, that only 3.637 acres, of the 23.363 acre parcel, were affected by the map of reservation and that was not a substantial portion of the property.
In order to recover compensation, Zyderveld had to establish that DOT's interference deprived him of all or substantial economic use of his property. Department of Transp. v. Weisenfeld, 617 So.2d 1071 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993), approved, 640 So.2d 73 (Fla. 1994); Joint Ventures, 563 So.2d at 625. In determining the amount of compensation, the inquiry at the trial level should have been "the extent of the interference or deprivation of economic use" by DOT. Id. Zyderveld was allowed to present expert testimony to show the impact upon his property. DOT was not allowed to present expert testimony to refute Zyderveld's experts. Although the trial judge based his decision to exclude DOT's experts upon the existing case law at the time, his decision effectively prevented the jury from hearing DOT's expert testify that Zyderveld suffered no substantial economic deprivation of his property and, therefore, should receive minimal compensation. The mere fact the map of reservation was filed does not automatically mean there was a compensable taking. The burden was upon Zyderveld to establish his damages and his compensation. See Tampa-Hillsborough County Expressway Auth. v. A.G.W.S., Corp., 640 So.2d 54 (Fla.1994).
Finally, the trial judge allowed Zy-derveld's expert to testify as to severance damages even though the expert said there was a temporary taking of the entire parcel. Severance damages can only be claimed where there is a partial taking. Mulkey v. Division of Admin., 448 So.2d 1062, 1065 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). This testimony contradicts the expert's own opinion that there was a temporary taking of the entire property or there could have been a temporary taking of the entire property.
Because of these errors, there is no method by which this court can determine if $445,-000, $375,000 for the temporary taking and $70,000 for severance damages, is the correct amount of compensation or if compensation was required at all.
We reverse the summary judgment rendered by the trial court based upon the Florida Supreme Court's approval of this court's decision in Weisenfeld, 617 So.2d 1071 (which receded from this court's previous holding in Orlando/Orange County Expressway Auth. v. W & F Agrigrowth-FeRNfield, Ltd., 582 So.2d 790, 792 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991), review denied, 591 So.2d 183 (Fla.1991), that the recording of a map of reservation pursuant to section 387.241 constituted a per se taking of property without just compensation and inverse condemnation would lie. We quash the judgment and remand to the trial court for a trial on the issue of DOT's taking of the property and just compensation to be awarded to Zyderveld. During the proceedings, Zyderveld can offer evidence to show that the map of reservation did affect his property to the extent that some form of taking did occur. A.G.W.S., Corp., 640 So.2d 54. DOT should be allowed an opportunity to present expert testimony on whether Zy-derveld suffered any substantial economic damages and the amount of compensation he is due.
REVERSED and REMANDED with directions.
DIAMANTIS, J., concurs in result only.
GOSHORN, J., concurs specially, with opinion.
. The final judgment reads in part
"[DOT], shall pay the sum of $375,000.00 for the temporary taking of his entire property from September 29, 1988 until June 1, 1990, and severance damages in the amount of $70,-000.00, all in accordance with the verdict ." (emphasis added).