Mid-Florida Growers, Inc. v. Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services

Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District · Property

PropertyInverse condemnationStays pending appealSupersedeas bondinverse condemnationtakingpolice powerstay pending appeal

Facts

The Department destroyed appellees' citrus nursery stock in 1984 as part of an effort to prevent the spread of citrus canker. The growers sued for inverse condemnation after compensation was not forthcoming, and the Department's liability was finally established before the later trial on damages. A jury then awarded damages to Mid-Florida and Himrod, and the Department appealed that final judgment, disputing lost profits and the valuation of the trees. The trial court conditioned any stay on immediate payment of amounts it treated as presently due and deposit of the balance into the court registry as security.

Issue

When the government appeals only the amount of damages after liability in inverse condemnation has already been finally determined, may the trial court condition a stay under Rule 9.310(b)(2) on immediate payment of an amount indisputably owed and on posting or depositing the remainder of the judgment as additional security?

Rule

Under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.310(b)(2), a lower tribunal may extend a stay, impose any lawful conditions, or vacate the stay when the government appeals. Where governmental liability is already final and only damages remain disputed, the trial court does not abuse its discretion by requiring immediate payment of an amount indisputably owed, but requiring the state to relinquish the remainder of the judgment as an additional supersedeas-type bond requires compelling justification.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

A Florida environmental agency finally lost an inverse-condemnation claim brought by marina owners in Tampa after liability was affirmed in an earlier appeal. At a later damages trial, the jury awarded market value plus business-loss damages, and the agency appealed only the damages calculation while conceding that at least $240,000 in market value was owed.

If the trial court grants a stay only on the condition that the agency immediately pay the $240,000 but need not secure the disputed remainder, which result is most consistent with the governing rule?

Explanation. When governmental liability is already final and the appeal concerns only damages, the lower tribunal may impose lawful conditions on a stay under Rule 9.310(b)(2). That includes requiring immediate payment of a sum the government effectively concedes is owed or that is unlikely to be materially reduced on appeal. The majority approved such a condition but rejected requiring additional security for the disputed remainder absent compelling justification. (Derived from Mid-Florida Growers, Inc. v. Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (n.d.).)