Florida Attorney General Slip Opinion 7019

Appellate Alert
Criminal Law Alert
E-Discovery Alert
Slip Opinions
AG Advisory Opinions
Legal Research

Court Reporter Contracts
AG Library Catalogues
Sunshine Manual
Pro Bono Opportunities
Other Resources
CLE Schedule

AG Phone Numbers
AG Attorney Profiles
Home

State of Florida
Office of Attorney General Pam Bondi

SLIP OPINION

CAUTION: The following is a slip opinion which may or may not reflect the exact contents of the opinion in its final published form. The original file provided by the court, when available, is attached. To obtain the original file, double-click the icon in the original file box below, then select detach or launch. It may then be viewed in WordPerfect with page numbering and footnotes as provided by the court.

AG number: 7019

Style: Simmons, et al., v. Department of Environmental Protection

Jurisdiction: 2nd DCA

Date issued: July 9, 2003

Original file, if available:		Print Version
AG HEADNOTE Agency’s obligation re: eminent domain A state agency that properly sent out written offers, and then waited the required time for a response, complied fully with eminent domain requirements and cannot be forced to negotiate further, the 2nd DCA held. The court rejected the claim of property owners who challenged a trial court’s eminent domain order of taking in favor of the Department of Environmental Protection. The owners argued that DEP failed to comply with presuit negotiation requirements and failed to present a good faith estimate of value based on a valid appraisal. The DCA disagreed, noting that the department sent out, and the property owners received, two written offers that complied with statutory requirements. “The appellants neglected to respond to the offers, and the Department filed suit after waiting the requisite thirty days under the statute. We reject the appellants’ argument that the Department’s duty to negotiate extended beyond its duty to send the written offers and await a response in this case. To the contrary, the appellants’ failure to respond to the offers ended the negotiations,” the DCA said.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT MARGIE T. SIMMONS, DOROTHY ) KATHRYN MORMON, GLENDA R. ) MERCER, WILLIAM FRANK CRUTE, ) and SHIRLEY BISHOP, ) ) Appellants, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D03-262 ) DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL ) PROTECTION, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed July 9, 2003. Appeal from nonfinal order of the Circuit Court for Collier County; Ted H. Brousseau, Judge. J. Christy Wilson, III, of Wilson, Garber & Small, P.A., Orlando, for Appellants. Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, and Robert I. Scanlan, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee. STRINGER, Judge. This is an eminent domain case wherein the appellants, Margie T. Simmons, Dorothy Kathryn Mormon, Glenda R. Mercer, William Frank Crute, and Shirley Bishop, the owners of parcel 42217000000, challenge the entry of an order of taking. The appellants argue that the trial court erred in entering the order of taking because the Department of Environmental Protection (“the Department”) failed to comply with presuit negotiation requirements and failed to present a good faith estimate of value based on a valid appraisal. We affirm the order in its entirety. We write only to express our views on the Department’s duty to negotiate in good faith with the fee owners prior to bringing an eminent domain proceeding. The Department’s duty to negotiate in good faith prior to bringing an eminent domain proceeding is set forth in section 73.015(1), Florida Statutes (2001). That section requires that the Department “must attempt to negotiate in good faith with the fee owner of the parcel to be acquired . . . and must attempt to reach an agreement regarding the amount of compensation to be paid for the parcel.” § 73.015(1). In this case, it is undisputed that the Department sent out, and the appellants received, two written offers that complied with section 73.015. The appellants neglected to respond to the offers, and the Department filed suit after waiting the requisite thirty days under the statute. See § 73.015(1)(b). We reject the appellants’ argument that the Department’s duty to negotiate extended beyond its duty to send the written offers and await a response in this case. To the contrary, the appellants’ failure to respond to the offers ended the negotiations. Affirmed. SILBERMAN, J., and THREADGILL, EDWARD F., SENIOR JUDGE, Concur.