Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/06/2018

Home

August 25, 2018 I Volume 12 I Issue 16 Zoning Bulletin In 2009, the Chmielewskis sued the City. They alleged the City com- mitted an unreasonable seizure of the property in violation of the Chmielewskis' Fourth Amendment rights and an unlawful taking of their property without full compensation in violation of the Florida Constitution. Ultimately, a jury returned a verdict for the Chmielewskis on both the federal and state claims. The jury awarded the Chmielewskis $1,489,700—which was the exact amount that the Chmielewskis' ap- praiser testified represented "just compensation" for the value of the entire beach parcel plus the severance damages to the Chmielewskis' residential property. After trial, the City moved for judgment as a matter of law (i.e., arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury's verdict), asking the court to issue judgment in the City's favor. The district court refused. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding that "the City had meaningfully interfered with the Chmielewskis' use and enjoyment of their property, in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and that the Chmielewskis had presented substan- tial evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that the City's statements and actions had demonstrated 'more than a passive attitude' about the public's use of the Chmielewski property." On the takings claim, the district court also held that the evidence supported a finding that the City: "created a right of public access across Block M behind the Don Vista Center, so that a fair-minded person could conclude that the City's actions gave members of the public a permanent and continu- ous right to pass to and fro on Block M, so that the Chmielewski Block M beach parcel may be continuously traversed." The City had also contended that if the judgment was to be enforced, then the City should receive title to the Chmielewskis' beach parcel. The district court denied this request. The City appealed. On appeal, the City argued that the inverse condemnation award must be reversed because there was no evidence of a taking under Florida law. Alternatively, the City again contended that if the judgment was to be enforced, it should receive title to the beach parcel. DECISION: Judgment of United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida affirmed. The United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, was "unper- suaded by the City's arguments." The court first held that the evidence at trial supported the jury's finding that a physical taking occurred through the continuous occupation of the Chmielewskis' property by members of the general public, and that, through its actions, the City encouraged public occupation. The court noted that Article X, § 6(a) of the Florida Constitution 4 © 2018 Thomson Reuters