Case Name: The CITY OF PENSACOLA, a municipal corporation, Appellant, v. CAPITAL REALTY HOLDING COMPANY, INC., Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1982-03-29
Citations: 417 So. 2d 687
Docket Number: No. AF-45
Parties: The CITY OF PENSACOLA, a municipal corporation, Appellant, v. CAPITAL REALTY HOLDING COMPANY, INC., Appellee.
Judges: McCORD and ERVIN, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 417
Pages: 687–689

Head Matter:
The CITY OF PENSACOLA, a municipal corporation, Appellant, v. CAPITAL REALTY HOLDING COMPANY, INC., Appellee.
No. AF-45.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
March 29, 1982.
Rehearing Denied July 20, 1982.
John W. Fleming, Pensacola, for appellant.
Charles J. Kahn, Jr. and Richard P. War-field of Levin, Warfield, Middlebrooks, Ma-bie & Magie, P. A., Pensacola, for appellee.

Opinion:
SHAW, Judge.
This controversy originated as a collateral issue in an eminent domain proceeding in which the trial court found that Capital Realty was the owner of an accreted strip of land. The order was appealed, and this court found that there was insufficient evidence to support Capital's claim that the City's record title was defeated by the doctrine of accretion. The order was reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with the appellate court's opinion. Upon remand the City moved for the trial court to enter an order in accordance with the mandate of the appellate court and objected to the taking of additional evidence. The motion was denied, and the case was heard by the court sitting without a jury. The trial court found that the land in dispute was submerged beneath a navigable waterway when the City acquired title, and that through natural accretion, the waterway was changed or actually closed. Capital Realty, or its predecessor in title, was the upland owner at the time of the accretion. The court concluded that under the common law doctrine of accretion, the appellee, as upland owner, was entitled to the land.
The following points on appeal are presented for our consideration:
1. Whether the trial court erred in failing to follow the mandate of this court in City of Pensacola v. Capital Realty Holding Company, Inc., 388 So.2d 642 (1st DCA 1981).
2. Whether the trial court misapplied the common law doctrine of natural accretions.
3. Whether the trial court erred by determining that all of the accreted land was owned by Capital Realty.
4. Whether the trial court erred by determining that Capital Realty owns land neither described in its deed nor accreted to the upland owned by Capital Realty-
It is well settled that upon reversal and remand with general directions for further proceedings, a trial judge is vested with broad discretion in handling or directing the course of the cause thereafter. Lu-com v. Potter, 131 So.2d 724 (Fla.1961). We find that the taking of additional evidence upon remand was not an abuse of discretion.
As to Point IV, the parties agree that any presently submerged lands located within the legal description set forth in the order are still held by the City in trust for the public. Capital Realty makes no claim to these submerged lands. The order accordingly is REVERSED as to this issue and REMANDED to the trial judge with directions that his final judgment be modified to reflect the City's ownership in the submerged lots. The order is otherwise AFFIRMED as to all points.
McCORD and ERVIN, JJ., concur.