Holland & Knight Achieves Litigation Victory for Client Osceola County
December 12, 2006
David C. Borucke- Tampa
Steven L. "Steve" Brannock- Tampa
Scott J. Johnson- Orlando
ORLANDO, Fla. – Last week, the Florida Supreme Court entered a final order confirming victory for Holland & Knight client Osceola County, Florida, in a property rights claim filed against the County. This was the culmination of over seven years of litigation involving the compensation claim against the County, which initially involved a trial court judgment against the County that had mushroomed to nearly $4 million.
The Holland & Knight team was led by Orlando partner
Scott Johnson, Orlando associate
Mike Sjuggerud and Tampa
appellate partners Steve Brannock and
David Borucke.
The lawsuit was filed in 1999 by a disgruntled property owner, as a result of the County denying the owner a conditional use permit to continue operating a landfill in Osceola County. The owner claimed compensation for the "taking" of his landfill under theories of inverse condemnation and the Bert Harris Act (a Florida property rights law). The Orlando trial team filed a motion for summary judgment early in the case, arguing that the controlling law did not allow a claim for inverse condemnation and under the Harris Act. Notwithstanding the belief that controlling law compelled judgment for the County, the trial judge denied the motion. A week-long bench trial occurred thereafter in 2001, in which the court ruled for the owner and found that the County's denial of the permit resulted in an inverse condemnation and a violation of the Harris Act.
The case proceeded to a jury trial in 2003 for the purpose of the jury determining compensation to be awarded to the owner. After a week long trial, the jury returned a verdict for $1.4 million for the taking of the property rights of the owner. With the owner's additional claim of attorney's fees, costs and interest, the compensation judgment ultimately grew to approximately $4 million.
In 2002, Holland & Knight's appellate team was introduced to the case, and appealed the liability judgment, again arguing the same controlling principles of law that had been argued by the firm in the earlier motion for summary judgment. Following oral argument on appeal, the Fifth District Court of Appeal in Florida entered a 1-1-1 opinion in which each of the three appellate judges wrote an opinion reaching a different result. The practical effect was a 2 to 1 vote
against the County, upholding the liability and damages judgment.
Based upon the record that had been developed by the Orlando trial team, and the belief that the appellate majority had reached an incorrect conclusion, Holland & Knight's appellate team filed a motion for rehearing. The appellate court considered the firm's motion for rehearing for approximately one year. In August 2006, the rehearing was granted by which one of the appellate judges revised her opinion, and agreed with the other appellate judge who had earlier voted for reversal in favor of the County, adopting in large part the legal and factual reasoning that had been argued by the firm in the initial motion for summary judgment. As a result of the change of opinion, the motion for rehearing led to a reversal of the initial appellate opinion, and by a 2 to 1 vote, resulted in the liability and damages judgments against the County being reversed in their entirety, ending in apparent victory for the County.
However, the property owner thereafter filed a petition with the Florida Supreme Court, requesting that the Supreme Court accept jurisdiction and argued that the County's motion for rehearing was without merit and that the initial opinion of the appellate court in his favor should be reinstated. On December 4, 2006, the Supreme Court entered it's final order denying jurisdiction. As a result, the defense victory for the County was confirmed, overturning the $4 million claim
against the County.
Contact: Susan Bass, (813) 769-4326