Laserfiche WebLink
I <br />C, <br />GOOK I U D GE <br />' 32 <br />12. BLAKE & TORRES V. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY <br />Assistant County Attorney Terrence P. O'Brien reviewed a Memorandum of June 25, <br />1998: <br />TO: Board of County Commissioners <br />FROM: Terrence P. O'Brien, Assistant County Attorney"`!p© <br />DATE: June 25, 1998 <br />SUBJECT: Blake & Torres v. Indian River County <br />The County is a defendant in an inverse condemnation lawsuit brought by the <br />owners of property located on the northwest comer of Oslo Road and Old Dixie <br />Highway. During the course of construction of improvements to the intersection <br />at Oslo and Old Dixie, a storm sewer manhole and a force main were installed <br />several feet into the Blake and Torres property. This established the basis for an <br />inverse condemnation law suit which also includes a plea for damages for the <br />loss of access to Oslo Road. <br />The County made an offer of judgment for $20,000 to settle the lawsuit. This <br />was rejected. Blake & Torres have made an offer to settle for $45,000. In <br />addition, they are seeking attorney fees of $30,000. Attorney fees will be the <br />subject of a separate court action. The subject of this settlement is limited to the <br />claim of $45,000 by Blake & Torres and costs to date. Staff feels that the <br />$20,000 original offer is more in keeping with actual damages. However, inverse <br />condemnation, like condemnation, results in the County paying for experts, costs <br />and the like for the Plaintiff if they prevail. For example, the cost we have <br />received from our appraiser to 1) determine the value of the property taken and <br />2) the value of the tract before and after the taking is $10,000. <br />There is a question as to loss of access to Oslo Road and if this were decided in <br />favor of the County it could reduce our exposure substantially, but it would not <br />remove the fact that inverse condemnation has occurred and all the attendant <br />expenses would still exist. <br />Staff is reluctant to recommend that we pay the $45,000 but at the same time we <br />are mindful that costs can become prohibitive and this tail can wag the dog. The <br />course of action that we do recommend is that we test, by summary judgment, <br />the issue of "loss of access." If we prevail, then we should defend the lawsuit. If <br />we lose the summary judgment, then we will return to the Board with a <br />recommendation as how to proceed including possible settlement. <br />July 14, 1998 <br />0 <br />