Case Name: K-MART CORPORATION, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1994-04-22
Citations: 636 So. 2d 131
Docket Number: No. 93-01449
Parties: K-MART CORPORATION, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Appellee.
Judges: RYDER, A.C.J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 636
Pages: 131–134

Head Matter:
K-MART CORPORATION, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Appellee.
No. 93-01449.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
April 22, 1994.
Michael W. Gaines of Michael W. Gaines, P.A., Clearwater, for appellant.
Thorton J. Williams and Gregory G. Cos-tas, Tallahassee, for appellee.

Opinion:
PATTERSON, Judge.
K-Mart Corporation appeals from a final order which dismisses it with prejudice as a party in this eminent domain action. We reverse because the trial court erred in interpreting the lease agreement to preclude any recovery by K-Mart.
K-Mart operates one of its retail stores on land it leases in Pinellas County. The Department of Transportation (DOT) initiated a condemnation action involving a partial taking of the leased property for the construction of an overpass on U.S. 19. The taking has resulted in K-Mart's loss of direct access to U.S. 19 and the loss of driveways and parking areas.
In its answer to DOT's petition, K-Mart asserted claims for severance and business damages. DOT filed no response in opposition or avoidance of K-Mart's claims. On the morning of trial, DOT filed and served a motion to dismiss K-Mart as a party to the action based on the bare assertion that K-Mart "has no right to compensation." The court continued the trial and set a hearing on the motion. DOT argued and the court agreed that the terms of K-Mart's lease restricted its recovery to a claim against the lessor. The court entered the order now under review which states, "[T]he Court grants Petitioner's Motion to Dismiss K-Mart and K-Mart is hereby dismissed with prejudice as a Party Defendant from this cause." DOT now concedes that the dismissal of K-Mart's claim for business damages was error. We determine that the dismissal in its entirety was error.
The diminution of a leasehold interest by governmental taking is compensable. State Road Dep't v. White, 148 So.2d 32 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962), cert. denied, 161 So.2d 828 (Fla.1964). However, the lease agreement may limit or eliminate this right of compensation. See Simpson v. Fillichio, 560 So.2d 331 (Fla. 4th DCA), review dismissed, 574 So.2d 140 (Fla.1990). The lease in this case contains two pertinent provisions. The first states that the lessee is precluded from sharing in any award made for a taking if the taking involves the "expropriation of landlord buildings on the demised premises." The trial court apparently relied on this provision in determining that K-Mart had no right to compensation. It is the second provision, however, which is controlling. That provision, in pertinent part, states that "the tenant's right to receive compensation or damages or to share in any award shall not be affected in any manner hereby if said compensation damages or award is made by reason of expropriation of the land." There is no factual dispute that the taking here involves only land and, therefore, K-Mart is entitled to be compensated.
Reversed and remanded with instructions that K-Mart be reinstated as a party to this action.
RYDER, A.C.J., concurs.
LAZZARA, J., concurs specially.