Opinion
No. 2D13–1834.
2014-02-28
Gary M. BIVENS, Edward Loper, Leonard Mizio, and John Sauco, Appellants, v. RIVER HAVEN, INC., a Florida corporation; Charlotte County, a Political Subdivision of the State of Florida; Colonial Bank, N.A.; John Milowe; Gloria Bello; Marie Cinelli; Leonce Gaudet and Mary Gaudet; Loper Greene Development Corporation, a dissolved Florida corporation; Donald Barnes and Kay Barnes; Marjorie Barnes; Larry Jones and Sarah Jones; Donald Denninger and Florence Denninger; Vernon Bragg and Virginia Bragg; William Shay and Sarah Hildebrand; V. Frank Desguin, Property Appraiser; and Vickie Potts, Tax Collector; and Any Unknown Parties Claiming an Interest in the Property, Appellees.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Charlotte County; Joseph G. Foster, Judge. Jay J. Bartlett of Smolker Bartlett Schlosser Loeb & Hinds, P.A., Tampa, for Appellants. Michael R. Whitt and Mark A. Trank of Becker & Poliakoff, P.A., Fort Myers, for Appellee River Haven, Inc., a Florida corporation.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Charlotte County; Joseph G. Foster, Judge.
Jay J. Bartlett of Smolker Bartlett Schlosser Loeb & Hinds, P.A., Tampa, for Appellants. Michael R. Whitt and Mark A. Trank of Becker & Poliakoff, P.A., Fort Myers, for Appellee River Haven, Inc., a Florida corporation.
Robert J. Gill of Adams and Reese LLP, Sarasota, for Appellee Charlotte County, a Political Subdivision of the State of Florida.
No appearance for remaining Appellees.
KHOUZAM, Judge.
We review the trial court's order denying the Appellants' motion for apportionment of proceeds resulting from an eminent domain proceeding. The parties agree that the Appellants had an equitable interest in the land taken and that the trial court erred in finding that they are not entitled to compensation. The parties also agree that the trial court had the authority to order the distribution, despite its finding to the contrary. We therefore reverse and remand with directions for the court to determine the value of the interest lost and to order the appropriate portion of the funds distributed. This determination may be based on the evidence already presented or, if necessary, the trial court may take additional evidence.
Additionally, the parties agree that the order contains a misstatement of fact: the order states that River Haven residents “pay a monthly rent” to occupy their lots, but the parties agree that the monthly fee is for maintenance rather than rent.
Reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
WALLACE and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur.