Opinion ID: 1695578
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: diminution in access as a taking

Text: The Florida Constitution states that [n]o private property shall be taken except for a public purpose and with full compensation therefor paid to each owner or secured by deposit in the registry of the court and available to the owner. Art. X, § 6(a), Fla. Const.; see also Village of Tequesta v. Jupiter Inlet Corp., 371 So.2d 663, 669 (Fla.) (holding that Florida Constitution bars the taking of private property except for public use, and then only after full compensation), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 965, 100 S.Ct. 453, 62 L.Ed.2d 377 (1979). Further, where a government agency, by its conduct or activities, has effectively taken private property without a formal exercise of the power of eminent domain, a cause of action for inverse condemnation will lie. Schick v. Florida Dep't of Agriculture, 504 So.2d 1318, 1319 (Fla. 1st DCA), review denied, 513 So.2d 1060 (Fla. 1987). Proof that the governmental body has effected a taking of the property is an essential element of an inverse condemnation action. Kendry v. Division of Admin., 366 So.2d 391, 393-94 (Fla. 1978). A taking may occur in a wide variety of circumstances and may be either temporary or permanent. For example, a taking may occur when governmental action causes a loss of access to one's property even though there is no physical appropriation of the property itself. [1] In Palm Beach County v. Tessler, 538 So.2d 846, 849 (Fla. 1989), the property owners had a commercial business on Palmetto Park Road in Boca Raton, but permanently lost access to their property from that road when a retaining wall was built directly in front of the property. As a result, customers had to access the property by winding 600 yards through a residential neighborhood. Id. at 847. We concluded that the property owners could recover damages for their loss of access because they lost more than their most convenient means of access. Id. at 850. Quoting from the district court, we stated: They have shown that the retaining wall will require their customers to take a tedious and circuitous route to reach their business premises which is patently unsuitable and sharply reduces the quality of access to their property. The wall will also block visibility of the commercial storefront from Palmetto Park Road. Id. While allowing a recovery on these narrow facts, we cautioned: However, the fact that a portion or even all of one's access to an abutting road is destroyed does not constitute a taking unless, when considered in light of the remaining access to the property, it can be said that the property owner's right of access was substantially diminished. The loss of the most convenient access is not compensable where other suitable access continues to exist. A taking has not occurred when the governmental action causes the flow of traffic on an abutting road to be diminished. Id. at 849. While petitioners claim that the impairment of access here qualifies as a taking under Tessler, DOT asserts that there was no Tessler -type taking at any point in this case because petitioners' pre-existing right of ingress and egress to and from the abutting public road was never lost during the construction process.