Case Name: STATE of Florida, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Appellant, v. Gayle A. WOODS, et al., Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1994-03-02
Citations: 633 So. 2d 94
Docket Number: No. 93-0730
Parties: STATE of Florida, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Appellant, v. Gayle A. WOODS, et al., Appellees.
Judges: DELL, C.J., and GLICKSTEIN, J„ concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 633
Pages: 94–96

Head Matter:
STATE of Florida, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Appellant, v. Gayle A. WOODS, et al., Appellees.
No. 93-0730.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
March 2, 1994.
Rehearing Denied April 5, 1994.
Thornton J. Williams, General Counsel, Gregory G. Costas, Asst. General Counsel, Tallahassee, for appellant.
John P. Tynan, Jupiter, for appellee Gayle A. Woods.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The Department of Transportation (DOT) appeals an order awarding costs for a consultant hired by the landowner in this eminent domain action. We reverse the award, finding the consultant's fee was not a proper cost.
The appellee-landowner hired the consultant to assist the landowner's attorney in selecting expert witnesses for the condemnation action, preparing them for trial, and informing trial counsel on the nuances of eminent domain cases, because trial counsel was admittedly a novice in such cases and unfamiliar with the procedures. After successfully litigating the matter, the landowner requested and received an award of costs for the consultant, which we must now consider.
Under section 73.091, Florida Statutes (1993), the landowner is entitled to just compensation from the condemning authority, including the payment of expenses which aid in a determination of just valuation. Sarasota County v. Burdette, 524 So.2d 1064 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). In a proper case, the landowner may secure a fee for expert witnesses, even though they do not testify at trial. Cheshire v. State Road Dept., 186 So.2d 790 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. denied, 192 So.2d 493 (Fla.1966). All that is necessary is that the expert render an opinion or perform services which are helpful in determining the valuation of the property. See Dade County v. Brigham, 47 So.2d 602 (Fla.1950); Leeds v. City of Homestead, 407 So.2d 920 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).
The consultant in this case was not hired as an expert witness, but to assist the landowner's attorney in the litigation. His function was not to render an opinion on just valuation. Therefore, there is no basis under section 73.091 for an award of his fees.
Accordingly, the trial court abused its discretion in assessing the consultant's fee as an expert cost.
REVERSED.
DELL, C.J., and GLICKSTEIN, J" concur.
PARIENTE, J., dissents with opinion.