1.    One series of cases I handled against Seminole County involved an attempt to take a client's entire parcel at the condemnor's appraised value of $690,000. We defended that it was unnecessary for the County to take the entire parcel, rather than just a small strip of it. After some depositions were taken and other discovery obtained, the condemning authority voluntarily dismissed its case, paying all of our client’s fees and costs. Subsequently, the County re-filed, but only sought approximately 20 feet of the property.  The County's original offer for the strip of land was $225,000. We ultimately obtained a stipulated judgment for our client for $495,000, plus attorneys’ fees and costs. In yet a subsequent case involving the same property, the County, according to its acquisition agent, was going to offer $60-70,000 for the entire remainder parcel, but for tactical reasons never made that offer. It ultimately sought to obtain the entire parcel for $307,000, based on its appraisal. We again opposed the taking and prevailed upon the Court to deny the taking. Ultimately, the client received a settlement of $800,000 for the small strip (approximately 17 feet), and kept the rest of the land. Again, the County paid all fees and costs. The client was able to keep the remainder parcel, and sold it for several hundred thousand dollars, $650,000 if memory serves correctly. In short, the client got in excess of $1,320,000 for a taking of 37 feet off its parcel, and got to keep its remainder parcel that was worth several hundred thousand dollars, where the County had originally sought to obtain the entire parcel for $690,000.

            The above-referenced series of cases involved not only the issue of the propriety of the taking but also business damages, severance damages, and questions concerning environmental impacts on the value of the property. It was a complex series of cases. The extremely favorable outcome was a direct result of our efforts in setting up the case properly. This series of cases was highlighted in a front page article of the April 6, 1997 edition of the Orlando Sentinel in an exposé of examples where Seminole County had been "taken advantage of" in condemnation matters.

    2.    In another case, the County of Volusia sought to take a client’s property for use in relation to the intermodal transportation system used in connection with the County’s parking garage across from the Ocean Walk project. We raised some rather innovative points to challenge the taking (including questioning the public benefit to be served by taking cars off the beach to benefit a private developer). The appraisal by the County was $260,000, and we settled prior to the hearing on the order of taking for $430,000 plus payment of all fees and costs.

    3.    The City of Daytona Beach sued several clients in order to accommodate the expansion of the Adam’s Mark Hotel. We challenged the propriety of the taking. After four days of hearings on the propriety of the taking, the Circuit Court judge ruled the taking was proper. We appealed. After filing the appeal, the case settled. One client’s property had been appraised for $96,000, and we settled for $300,000, plus payment of all fees and costs. Another client’s property had been appraised for $435,000, and we settled for $900,000, plus payment of all fees and costs. In both cases, the settlements were for far more than even our own appraiser could justify.

    4.    I have also had a number of cases against FDOT on road projects.  In one instance, the FDOT’s taking seriously damaged the remainder property, leaving it with terribly poor access. The FDOT appraisal was $644,600.  After extremely involved and lengthy litigation and settlement negotiations, we settled for $2.1 million, plus $100,000 for access improvement and payment of all fees and costs. This case involved a litigation team composed of numerous experts, including appraisers, land planners, civil engineers, traffic engineers, environmental scientists and surveyors. We commissioned the appraiser to perform a damage study on loss of good access. Prior to the case, we developed a strategy that helped our client to set the case up for maximum recovery. This allowed us to prevail upon the Court to enter an order of inverse condemnation as to a parcel that the FDOT tried to exclude from valuation.