Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...each the question of whether or not our constitutions [23] require that appellants be compensated for the removal of their nonconforming signs [24] because it is clear that under both the state and federal laws, compensation must be paid appellants. Section 479.24(1) provides: Compensation shall be paid upon the removal of all signs lawfully in existence on December 8, 1971 or signs lawfully erected which later become nonconforming....

...In addition section 479.15(2) provides: No municipality, county, local zoning authority, or other political subdivision shall remove, or cause to be removed, any advertisement or advertising structure without paying compensation in accordance with s. 479.24(1)....

...I agree also that the Department should compensate Mr. Walker for the I-75 sign that the Department took down sometime in 1977, thus treating it as removed for its nonconformance to 1971 statutes implementing the Highway Beautification Act of 1965. Sections 479.11, 479.24, Florida Statutes (1977); Sections 14-10.19 et seq., Fla....

...r v. State, Department of Transportation, 352 So.2d 126 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977) upholding the DOT's denial of the "farm produce exemption" of Florida Statute § 479.16(2) for Walker's signs. [3] 23 U.S.C. § 131. [4] 23 U.S.C. § 131(g), (n); Fla. Stat. § 479.24(1); Brazil v....

...1st DCA 1977) holding owner of sign erected after December 8, 1971, in violation of spacing regulations of highway beautification act, was entitled, on removal of sign, to compensation based on the actual value of the materials in the sign, under Florida Statute § 479.24(2)....

...— All signs which are lawfully in existence or are lawfully erected and which do not conform to the provisions of this chapter shall not be required to be removed by the department until after the end of the fifth year after they have become nonconforming. Section 479.24, Florida Statutes (1977), provides in part: Compensation for removal of signs; eminent domain; exceptions....

...Finally, we hold, after examining the pertinent statutory provisions, that B & B is entitled to compensation for the removal of its sign. DOT contends the trial court was correct in ordering the removal of the sign at B & B's expense, and quotes the first sentence of Section 479.24(1), for support: "Compensation shall be paid upon the removal of all signs lawfully in existence on December 8, 1971 or signs lawfully erected which later become nonconforming." (Emphasis supplied.) However, DOT's argument ignores the...

...The absolute destruction of property is an extreme exercise of the police power and is justified only within the narrow limits of actual necessity, unless the state chooses to pay compensation. Corneal v. State Plant Board, 95 So.2d 1, 4 (Fla. 1957). Because of the legislative intent in Section 479.24(1) that compensation be paid *759 and because of the ambiguous language in that subsection, we construe Chapter 479 to require compensation for the actual replacement value of the materials....

...1966), the court noted that damages to a business located on land appropriated in eminent domain proceedings do not constitute part of the constitutionally protected right of just compensation for the public taking of private land and are only compensable as provided by statute. In the instant case, the applicable statute is section 479.24, Florida Statutes (1981), which provides in part: Compensation for removal of signs; eminent domain; exceptions....

...Therefore, strictly construing, as we must, the statute authorizing revocation of outdoor advertising permits, DOT cannot use the vehicle of revocation for removal of Wainwright's signs. Wainwright also argued below that if his signs were removed, he should receive compensation therefor under Section 479.24, since the signs were lawful when erected but later became nonconforming due to DOT's changed interpretation of the permitting statute. Section 479.24(1) provides that "[j]ust compensation shall be paid upon the removal of a lawful nonconforming sign along any portion of the interstate ... highway system." DOT rejected this claim, reiterating that the signs were illegal ab initio, and that such unlawfully erected signs were not subject to compensation under Section 479.24....

...1963) (when a permit is intentionally and lawfully issued by the proper officers, it can have no other purpose than to authorize action by the permittee in accordance with its terms). Therefore, Wainwright is not barred from receiving compensation pursuant to Section 479.24 based on any initial illegality. However, Section 479.24 goes on to provide that it does not apply to a sign "which is illegal at the time of its removal....

...ision which makes [his *566 signs] nonconforming," i.e. the requirement of commercial activity, the interpretation of which was herein altered. Therefore, Wainwright's signs are lawful and nonconforming and he is entitled to compensation pursuant to Section 479.24....

...This section directs the department to "make every reasonable effort to negotiate the purchase of the [nonconforming] signs to avoid litigation and congestion in the courts." Failing that, the department "is authorized to use the power of eminent domain" pursuant to Chapters 73 and 74. Section 479.24(3)(a)....

...OVERTON, Justice. This is a petition to review a decision of the Fourth District Court of Appeal reported at 382 So.2d 1347 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980), in which the court held that the Department of Transportation need not compensate the owner of a billboard sign under section 479.24, Florida Statutes (1977), for requiring the sign's removal for violation of section 479.02(1), Florida Statutes (1977)....

...[2] *1371 DOT thereafter cited LaPointe for violation of section 479.02, erecting a sign within 1000 feet of a permitted sign, and section 479.07(1), erecting a sign without a valid permit, and ordered the billboard's removal. The Fourth District affirmed DOT's final order. The question presented for our review is whether section 479.24(1) requires that the state compensate LaPointe for its sign. That section provides: 479.24 Compensation for removal of signs; eminent domain; exceptions....

...In Brazil, as in the instant case, an outdoor advertiser had erected a billboard which violated the Beautification Act's 1000-foot spacing provision. Also as in the instant case, DOT had ordered the sign's removal. DOT denied compensation for the sign, contending that because section 479.24(1) provided "[c]ompensation shall be paid upon the removal of all signs lawfully in existence on December 8, 1971 or signs lawfully erected which later become nonconforming" and because the subject sign had not been lawfully erected, no compensation was owing....

...awarded compensation for the cost of the sign's materials. Conversely, when considering the issue in the instant case, the Fourth District Court of Appeal held that the statute did not require compensation. The court found the controlling portion of section 479.24 to be the "lawfully in existence" language and concluded that "[c]ompensation for removal of a sign erected in violation of the law essentially condones the initial unlawful act and totally ignores the first sentence of Section 479.24(1)." 382 So.2d at 1349. We fully agree with the Fourth District Court's conclusion and find that section 479.24 is not ambiguous and does not require compensation for nonconforming, unlawfully erected billboards mandatorily removed by DOT order. Our decision is totally consistent with the legislative intent behind section 479.24....

...d the final order herein must be reversed. See also Wainwright v. Department of Transportation, 488 So.2d 563 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). However, we agree with the agency that it is not altogether estopped from requiring that the subject signs be removed. Section 479.24, Florida Statutes, makes clear provision for the appropriate actions to be taken in the event a previously lawful sign becomes nonconforming and it is to that provision that DOT is referred in the event it desires to take further action on this matter....

...1st DCA 1977), holding that the Department of Transportation has the authority to enforce the agreement. We agree and hold the spacing restriction to be enforceable. La Pointe further contends that if removal is required, it is entitled to compensation. Regarding compensation, Section 479.24(1), Florida Statutes (1977), provides: (1) Compensation shall be paid upon the removal of all signs lawfully in existence on December 8, 1971 or signs lawfully erected which later become nonconforming....

...to the actual replacement value of the materials. We decline to follow this portion of Brazil. Compensation for removal of a sign erected in violation of the law essentially condones the initial unlawful act and totally ignores the first sentence of Section 479.24(1), Florida Statutes (1977)....

...DOT argued that under Division of Administration, State of Florida, Department of Transportation v. Allen, 447 So.2d 1383 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984), billboards are personal property for which DOT does not have to pay compensation. The trial court held that Allen was predicated on language in section 479.24, Florida Statutes, as it existed prior to a 1984 amendment and therefore Allen was neither controlling nor persuasive....

...Alternatively the signowners contend that if their signs are found to be illegally erected and maintained, and therefore subject to removal, compensation must nevertheless be paid for the actual replacement value of the materials in those signs pursuant to Section 479.24(1), which provides: (1) Compensation shall be paid upon the removal of all signs lawfully in existence on December 8, 1971 or signs lawfully erected which later become nonconforming....

...Compensation for any sign erected or completed after December 8, 1971 shall be limited to the actual replacement value of the materials in such signs. It is the legislative intent that any person erecting or completing such a sign after December 8, 1971 shall be fully compensated by the method herein provided. Construing Section 479.24(1), this court in Brazil v....

...1st DCA 1977), ordered a signowner compensated for the replacement value of materials in his sign which was found to have been erected and maintained adjacent to an interstate highway in violation of the spacing requirements of Chapter 479. The District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, placed a different interpretation of Section 479.24(1) in LaPointe Outdoor Advertising v....

...has attached because of that prior decision and that Court may reasonably be expected soon to make the law uniform on an important subject. For the reasons stated, then, we decline to consider appellants' claims for compensation based on Brazil and Section 479.24(1), and in affirming the Department's order for removal of appellants' offending signs we remit the question of compensation to the Department to abide the Supreme Court's decision in LaPointe....

...Under these circumstances, this court ruled that summary judgment should not have been entered against the sign owner on his cross-claim for compensation and that compensation for the value of the materials used in the sign was required under Florida Statutes § 479.24, which provides: Compensation shall be paid upon the removal of all signs lawfully in existence on December 8, 1971 or signs lawfully erected which later become nonconforming....

...pacing requirements of Chapter 479, was incorrectly decided and that the decision of the Fourth District in LaPointe Outdoor Advertising v. Fla. Dept. of Transp., 382 So.2d 1347 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980) represents the better view. In Brazil, we construed Section 479.24(1) as allowing compensation for the materials in a sign illegally erected near an interstate highway after December 8, 1971. There we stated that the first sentence of Section 479.24(1) provides compensation only for signs lawfully erected before December 8, 1971, or for signs lawfully erected thereafter "which later became nonconforming," *163 but we found "plain meaning" supporting the signowner's position in the last two sentences of subsection (1). Finding in Section 479.24(1) an ambiguity, we resolved it in favor of compensating the signowner for the value of materials in a sign illegally erected in May, 1972. [1] On further considering the text of the 1971 amendment to Chapter 479, its evident purpose, and its legislative history, I conclude, as did the Fourth District in LaPointe, that Section 479.24(1) provides no compensation for the forced removal of signs erected after December 8, 1971, in violation of the setback or spacing restrictions of the Highway Beautification Act and its implementing Florida legislation. Instead, it is my view that Section 479.24(1) allows payment for the removal of nonconforming signs only, as the term nonconforming is understood within the context of zoning and land use regulations which permits, for example, a use which was in existence before the passage of...

...reasonable balance between the interests of the community and those of the private owner. See State ex rel. S.A. Lynch Corp. v. Danner, 159 Fla. 874, 33 So.2d 45, 47 (1947). By applying the same construction to the word nonconforming as provided in Section 479.24(1), I consider that the statute provides full compensation, awardable in eminent domain proceedings, for the removal of any sign which was lawfully erected near an interstate highway before July 1, 1971, and it awards full compensation...

...ay, and (2) the forced removal of a sign erected between July 1, 1971 and the effective date of the Act, December 8, 1971. But, the statute allows no compensation for the forced removal of a sign illegally erected or maintained. This construction of Section 479.24(1) is supported by the legislative history of the 1971 Act and leaves no room for any inference that the legislature intended the Brazil result....

...When legislation was first proposed authorizing compensation to owners of signs forcibly removed, H.B. 2522 (introduced at the 1971 regular session on May 31, 1971) contained the same language as does the first sentence which ultimately was enacted as Section 479.24(1): "Compensation shall be paid upon the removal of all signs lawfully in existence at the time of this act or signs lawfully erected which later become nonconforming." (The remaining two sentences presently comprising subsection (1) were not offered until the special session of November and December, 1971.) H.B. 2522 also proposed, as is now provided in 479.24(2), that "compensation shall be made pursuant to the state's eminent domain procedures, ......

...At the special legislative session of November and December of 1971, H.B. 7-D, and its committee substitute, preserved the same language as was proposed in former House bills 2522 and 27-C, which was finally enacted into law as the first sentence to Section 479.24(1)....

...The language specifically denying compensation to owners of illegally nonconforming signs was not, however, retained. Its absence, nonetheless, compels no inference that the legislature intended to compensate owners who had illegally erected signs. The first sentence to proposed 479.24(1), as stated, remained intact and clearly expressed an intent to compensate only persons whose signs were lawfully in existence at the time of the Act, or whose signs became lawfully nonconforming thereafter....

...lawfully erected or maintained signs during certain designated periods of time. On December 3, 1971, Representatives MacKay, Stephens and Spicola offered, and the House adopted, a floor amendment to the committee substitute, adding subsection (5) to Section 479.24, which permitted, as it does now, compensation to signowners for the replacement value [2] of signs erected after July 1, 1971, [3] it being presumed that a person who erected a sign following such date did so "with the knowledge of the ......

...It is the legislative intent that any person erecting or completing such a sign after the effective date of this act shall be fully compensated by the method herein provided. The House adopted this amendment and C.S. for H.B. 7-D was passed containing Section 479.24(1)....

...The Senate also passed C.S. for H.B. 7-D, which became effective as Chapter 71-971, Section 9, Florida Laws, *165 on December 8, 1971. That date was inserted in Florida Statutes 1973 by revision in lieu of the bill's references to the "effective date of this act" in Section 479.24(1)....

...to the actual replacement value of the materials. We decline to follow this portion of Brazil. Compensation for removal of a sign erected in violation of the law essentially condones the initial unlawful act and totally ignores the first sentence of Section 479.24(1), F.S....

...of Transp., 366 So.2d 96, 97, n. 4 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979), as "holding owner of sign erected after December 8, 1971, ... was entitled, ... to compensation based on the actual value of the materials in the sign, ... ." (e.s.) [2] Fla. H.R. Jour. 12/3/71, special session, p. 37. Subsection 479.24(5), as originally proposed by Representatives MacKay, Stephens and Spicola, limited compensation to the "depreciated value of the materials," but Representative Harris's amendment to the amendment was adopted, changing "depreciated" to...

...ctober 22, 1965. Such cannot be the case here, however, since the legislature provided in section 479.15(2), Florida Statutes (1979), that no municipality can remove a billboard lawfully in existence on December 8, 1971, without paying compensation. Section 479.24(2) provides for payment of compensation pursuant to Florida's eminent domain procedures which would result in just compensation....

...(1999)("A permit is valid only for the location specified in the permit."). The application of these statutes would render the Texaco sign permit void, not merely voidable. Maverick also alleges that the Texaco sign is illegal because it was not lawfully erected or maintained. See § 479.24(1), Fla....

...e. The sound barrier in this case was constructed on FDOT’s own right of way, not on Appellants’ property. Furthermore, Florida law has not recognized the visibility of one’s signs along the interstate as a property right. While Florida law in § 479.24(1), Florida Statutes, has provided that the owner of a nonconforming sign, as defined in § 479.01(17), is entitled to just compensation “upon [FDOT’s] removal of a lawful nonconforming sign” (§ 479.24(1), Fla....

...ich permit was requested. Appellant presented the testimony of the contractor who originally built each of appellant’s signs prior to December 8, 1971 (the controlling date for certain compensation provisions relating to removal of the signs under Section 479.24, Florida Statutes)....

...Finally, we hold, after examining the pertinent statutory provisions, that B & B is entitled to compensation for the removal of its sign. DOT contends the trial court was correct in ordering the removal of the sign at B & B’s expense, and quotes the first sentence of Section 479.24(1), for support: “Compensation shall be paid upon the removal of all signs lawfully in existence on December 8, 1971 or signs lawfully erected which later become nonconforming.” (Emphasis supplied.) However, DOT’s argument ignore...

...The absolute destruction of property is an extreme exercise of the police power and is justified only within the narrow limits of actual necessity, unless the state chooses to pay compensation. Corneal v. State Plant Board, 95 So.2d 1, 4 (Fla.1957). Because of the legislative intent in Section 479.24(1) that compensation be paid *759 and because of the ambiguous language in that subsection, we construe Chapter 479 to require compensation for the actual replacement value of the materials....

...Under the provisions of § 479.23 the DOT has a right to remove signs if they have been non-conforming signs for more than five years, and by the terms of § 479.17, the DOT is actually charged with a duty to remove signs “maintained, posted or displayed in. violation of this chapter.” Section 479.24 requires that compensation be paid upon the removal of all signs lawfully in existence on December 8, 1971 or signs lawfully erected which later become non-conforming. It does not require compensation for illegal signs. Empire’s signs were not only non-conforming but were illegal and had been illegal for more than five years. Although there is no explicit provision in § 479.24 that no compensation shall be paid for an illegal sign, surely the legislature could not have intended that a sign owner could fail or refuse to comply with the permitting law indefinitely and then be fully compensated by the DOT for the removal of its illegally maintained sign. Under the interpretation of § 479.24 urged by Empire, the DOT would be required to pay compensation upon the removal of any sign which had been lawfully in existence on December 8, 1971, without regard to the owner’s non-compliance with law subsequent to that date....

...s sign, could obtain full compensation for the sign simply by refusing to obtain a permit or to pay the permit fee. Thus the sign owner would be rewarded for refusing to obey the law. This absurd result is foreclosed by the DOT’s interpretation of § 479.24....

...1981), the Florida Supreme Court ruled that no compensation need be made for removal of signs that were not lawfully in existence on 8 December 1971. In view of the definition in Section 479.01(1), bare poles do not constitute a “sign” within the meaning of Section 479.24(1)....

...billboard advertising along densely developed beachside roads. Finally, petitioner claims that the ordinance is invalid because it fails to provide compensation for the billboards. Chapter 479, Florida Statutes (1981), regulates outdoor advertising. Section 479.24(1), Florida Statutes, provides that: Compensation shall be paid upon the removal of all signs lawfully in existence on Dec....

...Section 479.15(2), Florida Statutes, provides: No municipality, county, local zoning authority, or other political subdivision shall remove, or cause to be removed, any advertisement or advertising structure without paying compensation in accordance with s. 479.24(1)....

...n by billboards. [5] U.S. Const. Amend. V, XIV; Art. I, §§ 2, 9, Fla. Const. [6] This court in Lamar-Orlando did not resolve this question because the signs there were located on a federal aid primary highway and hence under sections 479.15(2) and 479.24(1), Florida Statutes, compensation was required....