Flatt v. City of Brooksville
368 So. 2d 631 (1979)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Florida Constitution's mandate for "full compensation" for the taking of private property for a public purpose requires compensation for personal property damaged or destroyed as a result of the taking, not just for the real property.
Facts:
- The City of Brooksville constructed a new drainage system.
- As a result of the new system, surface water began to flood the home and land owned by Harold and Chet Flatt.
- The flooding caused by the City's drainage system resulted in damage and destruction to the Flatts' personal property located inside their home.
- The Flatts also suffered damage to their home and land.
Procedural Posture:
- Harold and Chet Flatt filed an inverse condemnation action against the City of Brooksville in a Florida trial court.
- The trial court determined that the City's actions had resulted in a taking of the Flatts' property.
- The City of Brooksville, as appellant, appealed that determination to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
- The District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's finding of a taking.
- On remand for a jury trial on the issue of compensation, the trial court refused to permit the Flatts to introduce evidence of the value of their damaged personal property.
- The trial court entered a final order holding that damages to personal property were not recoverable in an eminent domain action.
- The Flatts, as appellants, appealed the trial court's final order to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the "full compensation" clause of the Florida Constitution, in an inverse condemnation action, require a government entity to compensate a property owner for personal property that was damaged or destroyed as a result of the governmental taking of real property?
Opinions:
Majority - Scheb, J.
Yes. The "full compensation" clause of the Florida Constitution requires compensation for personal property destroyed as a result of a governmental taking. The court reasoned that Article X, § 6(a) of the Florida Constitution states that "No private property shall be taken... with[out] full compensation," making no distinction between real and personal property. This constitutional provision is self-executing and does not need a specific statute to be effective, so the absence of a statute authorizing such recovery is immaterial. Citing Kirkpatrick v. City of Jacksonville, the court affirmed the principle that owners of both real and personal property destroyed by government action are entitled to seek just compensation. The court concluded that allowing recovery for personal property is the only way to provide an owner with their constitutional right to "full compensation."
Analysis:
This decision clarifies that the scope of "property" under the Florida Constitution's takings clause is comprehensive and not limited to real estate. It establishes the precedent that consequential damages to personal property proximately caused by a governmental taking are compensable in an inverse condemnation action. This prevents the government from avoiding liability for the full extent of the harm caused by its actions, ensuring property owners can be made whole. Consequently, in future eminent domain or inverse condemnation cases in Florida, the valuation of the taking must include the value of any personal property lost or destroyed.
