Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
B. ADAM BERLIN v. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
Citation: Not availableDocket: 18-3057
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; January 7, 2020; Florida; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
In the case B. Adam Berlin et al. v. State of Florida Department of Transportation, appellants sought attorneys' fees following a stipulated final judgment in a condemnation action concerning their property for a road widening project. The Department of Transportation (DOT) moved to strike this claim, arguing it did not fulfill the requirements of section 73.092(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2017). The trial court agreed, leading to this appeal. The DOT's project involved condemning a portion of the appellants' property, which included plans for a truck turnaround that would restrict access to Kings Highway, prompting the appellants to claim millions in severance damages. However, the DOT's appraisals did not account for these damages. After the DOT filed for quick taking without including severance damages in their deposit, the appellants presented a counter-appraisal reflecting significant severance damages. Prior to mediation, the DOT revised the project to remove the turnaround, and during mediation, the appellants' counsel confirmed that this change would negate their severance claim. The mediation concluded with the parties agreeing on a compensation amount of $441,349.20, contingent upon the removal of the truck turnaround. Following the final judgment that incorporated this settlement, the appellants filed for attorneys' fees, asserting non-monetary benefits from their legal efforts. The DOT contested this claim, stating that the removal of the turnaround was solely due to their own initiatives, not the appellants' efforts. The appellate court found the DOT's motion to strike legally sufficient and reversed the trial court's decision, indicating that the appellants may be entitled to seek attorneys’ fees based on the non-monetary benefits achieved. In eminent domain proceedings, the court is required to award attorney's fees based on the "benefits" achieved for the client, defined as the difference between the final judgment or settlement and the last written offer from the condemning authority prior to the attorney's engagement. If no prior offer exists, the assessment is made from the first written offer post-engagement. The court may also consider non-monetary benefits, provided they are specifically identified and quantifiable. During a motion to strike by the Department of Transportation (DOT), it was argued that the appellants’ attorney did not request the removal of a jug handle and that the change was solely due to DOT efforts. The appellants contended the motion was procedurally improper and warranted an evidentiary hearing due to factual disputes, asserting they had achieved non-monetary benefits. The court granted the motion to strike, ruling that the appellants did not satisfy statutory requirements, prompting an appeal from the appellants. The appellate court found the trial court erred in granting the motion to strike, emphasizing that such a motion only assesses legal sufficiency, not merit. The appellants' motion was legally sufficient, merely citing the statutes authorizing attorney's fees. The DOT's challenge pertained to evidence of non-monetary benefits, which constituted a factual dispute that should have been resolved through an evidentiary hearing. The appellate court thus reversed the trial court's decision and remanded for further proceedings regarding the attorney's fees motion.