Opinion ID: 1090882
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Patel

Text: Importantly, this Court in Patel stressed that the availability of a future cure is relevant only to the extent it may have an impact upon fair market value [of the remaining property] as of the moment of the taking, and not otherwise. Patel, 641 So.2d at 43. Relatedly, this Court recognized that any loss to [the condemnees] by virtue of the appropriation of other areas of their property ... should be taken into account in determining fair market value on the day of the taking, along with associated reasonable costs. Id. at 44 n. 8. We cautioned, however, that [w]hen admitting evidence of future contingencies... the trial court must ensure that the finder of fact does not mistakenly assume that their cost or value can be considered apart from the effect on market value. Id. at 43 n. 7. Thus, we held in Patel that in a partial taking case, evidence as to the cost to cure may be admissible as a factor to be considered in determining the amount of recoverable damages to the remainder parcel. In effect, the cost to cure is the cost of an attempt to ameliorate the damage to value sustained by the property as a result of the partial taking by the government. The theory is that it is more economical to spend additional money on a cure to restore value to the remaining property because the cure will restore more lost value than its cost. However, as our opinion in Patel makes clear, while the cost to cure may be relevant evidence on the issue of damages, it is not a measure of damages to be separately assessed without reference to the reduction in fair market value of the remaining property. As noted in Patel: [A] knowledgeable buyer would offer less value for property that may require significant future expenses and more value for property with minimal future expenses. Likewise, the value of future improvements that may be probable also will factor into the equation when a knowledgeable buyer determines fair-market price. Id. at 43. Indeed, as a leading authority in the field of eminent domain has cautioned, costs to cure while admissible for the purpose of establishing just compensation do not create individual rights to damage, but are merely evidence of the effect of the taking upon the market value and therefore upon diminution in value of the remainder. 4A Julius L. Sackman, Nichols' The Law of Eminent Domain, § 14A.04[2], at 14A-99 (rev.3d ed.2001). Thus, cost to cure and other elements resultant from the taking are only admissible on the issue of just compensation if they are tied to their effect upon fair market value. Id. § 14A.04[2][a], at 14A-101. We agree with this explanation of severance damages and the use of cost to cure proposals in determining the fair market value of the remaining property after a partial taking. In doing so, we reject any suggestion that a property owner is entitled to additional compensation as a taking when the government's cure proposal includes a change in use of a portion of the remaining property. Of course, there is no actual additional taking and the change in use is simply an economic proposal to maintain or improve the value of the remaining property.