Case Name: CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG, Florida, Petitioner, v. Barry L. WALL and George D. Cranton, Respondents
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1985-06-20
Citations: 475 So. 2d 662
Docket Number: No. 62821
Parties: CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG, Florida, Petitioner, v. Barry L. WALL and George D. Cranton, Respondents.
Judges: BOYD, C.J., and ADKINS, McDONALD and SHAW, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 475
Pages: 662–666

Head Matter:
CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG, Florida, Petitioner, v. Barry L. WALL and George D. Cranton, Respondents.
No. 62821.
Supreme Court of Florida.
June 20, 1985.
Rehearing Denied Oct. 7, 1985.
Michael S. Davis, City Atty. and B. Norris Rickey, Asst. City Atty., St. Petersburg, for petitioner.
H. Rex Owen and Bruce Crawford of Owen and McCrory, St. Petersburg, for respondents.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
We have before us a petition to review City of St. Petersburg v. Wall, 419 So.2d 1167 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982), which expressly and directly conflicts with City of Lauderdale Lakes v. Corn, 415 So.2d 1270 (Fla.1982). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.
In 1977, the City of St. Petersburg (City) sought to condemn respondents' land for use in a proposed storm water drainage system and filed a lis pendens against the property. The trial court ruled that the City had not shown a necessity for the taking and entered a final judgment dismissing the petition for condemnation and dissolving the lis pendens. The City appealed and, pursuant to rule, an automatic stay of the judgment ensued. Respondents moved for an order authorizing the lower court to hear and determine a motion for an order requiring the City to post a super-sedeas bond pursuant to former Florida Appellate Rule 5.12(2) (now Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.310(b)(2)) to allow recovery for damages caused by the automatic stay pending disposition of the appeal. The district court denied the motion "without prejudice to appellees seeking recovery of damages and costs resulting from any stay pending appeal . " The decision of the lower court was subsequently affirmed. City of St. Petersburg v. Wall, 364 So.2d 896 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 376 So.2d 69 (Fla.1979).
Respondents initiated the present action, resulting in a jury verdict of $128,342.76 for damages sustained from the time the eminent domain action was filed. Upon appeal by the City, the district court affirmed the award for damages incurred during the appellate process but reversed the award for damages incurred during the progress of the condemnation action at the trial level reasoning:
[w]here, as here; there has been no showing of bad faith, a city should not be held liable for litigating a case which it subsequently loses. All property is owned subject to the power of eminent domain. Where that power is exercised in good faith, damages will not be assessed against the unsuccessful exercise of that legal right, although the landowner is entitled to costs and attorney's fees. § 73.091, Fla.Stat. (1981).
City of St. Petersburg, 419 So.2d at 1169.
The City argues in its petition that the district court erred in affirming the award for damages sustained during the appeal and cites conflict with City of Jacksonville v. Brentwood Golf Course, Inc., 338 So.2d 1105 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976) and Corn.
We agree with the district court that City of Jacksonville is distinguishable from the present case and presents no conflict in decisions. In City of Jacksonville, the appellee did not move the court to vacate the stay, impose conditions on the stay, or require the posting of a supersede-as bond. The appellant in City of Jacksonville undertook no duty to pay damages incurred by the stay of execution during the appeal. By contrast, as the district court found in the present case:
Here, the city was on notice that we recognized its potential liability even though we excused it from the expense of posting a bond. There is little reason to request a solvent municipality to post a bond when its potential liability for obtaining a stay is made a matter of record.
City of St. Petersburg, 419 So.2d at 1169.
The City's second argument is that there is clear conflict with Com and that the district court thus erred in affirming the award for damages incurred during the pendency of the stay. We agree there is conflict with Corn but approve the district court decision nevertheless.
In Com we were presented with a certified question:
May a city be required to post a bond for damages for delay in order to secure a stay of a final judgment that requires the public body to permit the construction of a development project?
Corn, 415 So.2d at 1271. We answered in the negative "because the city's action [zoning] is in performance of a legislative 'planning-level' function." Id. at 1271. In support of our decision, we noted the so-called "chilling effect" of requiring the city to post a bond in order "to appeal an adverse trial court decision declaring invalid a legislative act." Id. at 1272. We then explained:
We can conceive no justification for this Court to require the government to pay for judicial review of legislative actions .
It is paramount for governmental bodies to have unrestricted appellate court review of their authority to act in a legislative capacity. Requiring the payment of damages for such review is not justified in other circumstances and cannot be here.
Id. Our explanation did not address the certified question. The city's right to appeal was not controverted and the district court of appeal did not ask if the appeal could be conditioned on the posting of a bond. If the right to appeal had been the issue, we should have simply referred the district court of appeal to well-established law:
There is no provision in the law which would authorize the lower Court to compel the appellant to furnish a supersede-as bond as a condition to perfecting his appeal from a final decree which is a matter of right under the Constitution and laws of this State. (Citations omitted.)
Horn v. Horn, 73 So.2d 905, 906 (Fla.1954).
The purpose of the bond is to protect the party adversely affected against the consequences of the supersedeas or stay, and not against the appeal when the appeal is of right....
Bernstein v. Bernstein, 43 So.2d 356, 358 (Fla.1949). See also our decision of over a century ago, Kilbee v. Myrick, 12 Fla. 416 (1868).
In our answer, we made the error for which we chided the Second District Court of Appeal in State ex rel. State Board of Trustees v. District Court of Appeal, 261 So.2d 818, 820. (Fla.1972), where it conditioned the right of appeal upon the posting of a bond:
In our opinion, the District Court, by reason of unfortunate language in the last paragraph of the rule, has confused the purpose of a supersedeas bond thereunder which is to stay an adverse judgment by deeming it to be authority for an appellate court to require a bond as a condition precedent to the right of appeal. Compare Dixon v. Stone, Fla.1949, 38 So.2d 459.
The right to an appeal is a constitutional right which cannot be conditioned by the requirement of a bond. Horn v. Horn, Fla.1954, 73 So.2d 905, 906.
State ex rel. Board of Trustees, 261 So.2d at 820.
In the present case, we see no reason in law or equity for permitting the City to realize the benefits of an unconditional stay of the trial court judgment and a lis pendens encumbering the property when its petition for condemnation has been denied in a proper judicial proceeding. Normally, whether an order in equity is superseded or not is a decision for the trial judge. Froelich v. Rowley, 102 So.2d 720 (Fla.1958); Reid v. Barry, 90 Fla. 772, 107 So. 264 (1925). The cancellation of a lis pendens is likewise discretionary.
Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.310(b)(2) provides:
Public bodies; Public officers. The timely filing of a notice shall automatically operate as a stay pending review, except in criminal cases, when the State, any public officer in an official capacity, board, commission or other public body seeks review; provided that on motion the lower tribunal or the court may impose any lawful conditions or vacate the stay.
Here the appellees sought to require the City to post a bond as a prerequisite to the continuation of a stay. In its discretion, the district court properly denied this requirement, but without prejudice to the landowners to seek damages caused by the stay. In effect, this order was an alternative to the district court's power to strike the stay of the order cancelling the lis pendens. The City did not appeal the order of the district court. We can only assume that it elected to insist upon the stay, retain the lis pendens, and subject itself to the order which the district court had entered.
The district court reached the proper result by approving that part of the final judgment which subjected the City to its earlier order. We approve the decision.
It is so ordered.
BOYD, C.J., and ADKINS, McDONALD and SHAW, JJ., concur.
OVERTON, J., concurs in result with an opinion.
EHRLICH, J., dissents with an opinion, in which ALDERMAN, J., concurs.