Case Name: METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, and Joe Woodard and Louise Woodard, his wife, Appellants/Appellees, v. CURELLI, DOUGLAS, McCLASKEY, COLLINS n/k/a Sasser and L & M Auto Parts and Charles Sasser, et al., Appellees/Appellants
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1987-06-02
Citations: 511 So. 2d 602
Docket Number: Nos. 85-2174, 85-2571 and 86-88
Parties: METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, and Joe Woodard and Louise Woodard, his wife, Appellants/Appellees, v. CURELLI, DOUGLAS, McCLASKEY, COLLINS n/k/a Sasser and L & M Auto Parts and Charles Sasser, et al., Appellees/Appellants.
Judges: Before HUBBART, NESBITT and FERGUSON, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 511
Pages: 602–604

Head Matter:
METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, and Joe Woodard and Louise Woodard, his wife, Appellants/Appellees, v. CURELLI, DOUGLAS, McCLASKEY, COLLINS n/k/a Sasser and L & M Auto Parts and Charles Sasser, et al., Appellees/Appellants.
Nos. 85-2174, 85-2571 and 86-88.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
June 2, 1987.
Rehearing Denied Sept. 10, 1987.
Robert A. Ginsburg, Co. Atty. and Thomas Goldstein, Asst. Co. Atty.; Franz Eric Dorn, III, Miami, for appellants/appellees.
Brigham, Moore, Gaylord, Schuster & Sachs and J. Christy Wilson, III, Robert N. Reynolds, and Henry Hunter, Miami, for appellees/appellants.
Before HUBBART, NESBITT and FERGUSON, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
This is a consolidated appeal from a final judgment and cost orders entered in an eminent domain proceeding. The property owners appeal the final judgment; Metropolitan Dade County, the condemning authority, appeals the cost orders.
The property owners raise five points on appeal. First, it is urged that the trial court erred in denying the appellant Clarence McClaskey compensation for the loss in value of his business inventory allegedly caused by the taking in this case. We cannot agree. Business damages of this nature are not compensable where, as here, there is a total taking of real property, as opposed to a partial taking. See Tampa-Hillsborough County Expressway Authority v. K.E. Morris Alignment Service, Inc., 444 So.2d 926 (Fla.1983); § 73.-071(3)(b), Fla.Stat (1985). Second, it is urged that an evidentiary error was committed below. No discussion here would be useful as, plainly, no reversible error is shown by this point. Third, the remaining three points urged on appeal relating to (a) the jury verdict, (b) the service of summons on appellant Charles Sasser, and (c) the final argument of Dade County's counsel to the jury — have not been preserved for appellate review by proper objection below and do not otherwise present fundamental error. Dubowitz v. Century Village East, Inc., 385 So.2d 1116, 1117 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Nelson v. Reliance Insurance Co., 368 So.2d 361 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); Florida Antilles Properties, N. V. v. Rose & Rose, Inc., 324 So.2d 129 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976).
Dade County, in turn, attacks the propriety of the trial court's costs award of certain fees to two expert property appraisers hired by the property owners. Dade County presents no persuasive reason as to why these awards are excessive. It instead argues that the fees awarded are more than the fees paid by Dade County to its expert property appraiser and that the trial court did not otherwise explain how it arrived at its figures. This showing, in our view, falls far short of establishing that the trial court abused its discretion in making these awards. Moreover, the fee awards are otherwise fully supported by expert testimony adduced below as to the reasonableness of the fees. See Dade County v. Brigham, 47 So.2d 602 (Fla.1950).
The final judgment and costs orders under review are in all respects
Affirmed.
HUBBART and NESBITT, JJ., concur.