Opinion ID: 1090882
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Proposed Driveways

Text: DOT also asserts that the district court erred in concluding that testimony regarding the department's proposed cure should have been excluded because it was inconsistent with the construction plans admitted in evidence in that the driveways for the proposed cure could not be constructed within the temporary construction easement set out in those plans. DOT contends that the district court's opinion requires the condemnor to change its construction plans to partially implement a proposed cure before the cure plan may even be admitted into evidence and considered by the appraiser or jury in assessing the fair market value of the remainder. Accordingly, DOT maintains that the district court's decision could lead to the exact unfair scenario this Court noted in Patel, i.e., that the future contingency would not be considered by the jury, thereby increasing the severance damages and potential jury award, but also resulting in a windfall at taxpayers' expense if the owner should implement the cure in the future. See Patel, 641 So.2d at 44. In concluding that the trial court erred in admitting testimony concerning DOT's proposed cure, the district court relied on Belvedere Development Corp. v. Department of Transportation, 476 So.2d 649 (Fla.1985), wherein this Court stated: The second point raised by the petitioners is whether the state should have been permitted at trial to make certain promissory representations that they would or would not do certain things in the future which were not in the pleadings or construction plans offered in evidence. The petitioners assert that the damages caused by a project as contemplated by the construction plans in existence on the date of valuation and the pleadings govern the evidence of valuation and that representations of a purely promissory or speculative nature should not affect either the character or the extent of the damages the condemnor must pay as full compensation. We agree. When evidence in the form of plans and specifications is properly admitted for the purpose of providing a declaration of the manner in which the condemned property will be utilized, the Department should be bound by this evidence. Id. at 653. [6] Despite DOT's argument that the evidence was only offered to show a potential cure which does not have to be a part of its construction plans, the district court stated that DOT cannot be permitted to rely on a cure inconsistent with its own plans and whose implementation may be speculative at best and would require the use and appropriation of property to effect the cure different from that taken under the plans. Armadillo Partners, Inc., 780 So.2d at 237. In the instant case, we conclude the district court erroneously held that the trial court erred in admitting testimony regarding DOT's proposed cure. The issue in this case is not whether DOT is bound by its construction plans insofar as how the condemned property will ultimately be utilized. In fact, DOT acknowledges that it is bound by such plans. Rather, the issue is whether a cure proposed by DOT, which admittedly may or may not be implemented by the property owner, must be consistent with the department's current construction plans for the roadway project. See Patel, 641 So.2d at 43 n. 6 (noting that a duty to cure is something of a misnomer since neither party has an obligation to cure or mitigate anything). As noted above, neither party has an absolute duty to implement a particular cure. Rather, a cure is in effect an alternative proposal that a prospective buyer may implement or undertake to restore value to the remainder. The district court's opinion, however, in essence placed the entire risk to implement the cure on DOT and misapprehended the fact that any so-called cures will only be constructed by the landowner on the remainder parcel if the landowner determines they should be constructed at all. Moreover, the district court's opinion also overlooks the fact that DOT offered binding testimony from Douglas Green, a DOT engineer, that the department would permit the driveways as depicted in DOT's cure plan should the property owner choose to implement the cure. [7] Cf. Division of Admin. v. St. Regis Paper Co., 402 So.2d 1207 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) (finding trial court did not err in denying admission of disputed evidence where there was no binding witness authorized to make commitments for DOT on the details of the proposed connections or specific plans). We find Mr. Green's testimony sufficient to bind DOT and permit the introduction of DOT's proposed cure notwithstanding DOT's failure to include its proposed revisions in those plans. Cf. Belvedere Development Corp., 476 So.2d at 653.