Florida Statute 73.073 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research

The 2024 Florida Statutes

Title VI
CIVIL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

Chapter 73
EMINENT DOMAIN

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 73.073

73.073 Eminent domain procedure with respect to condominium common elements.—

(1) Any other provision of this chapter or any other provision of the Florida Statutes to the contrary notwithstanding, the procedure for the exercise of eminent domain with respect to the taking of a portion of the common elements of a condominium shall comply with the provisions of this section.

(2) With respect to the exercise of eminent domain or a negotiated sale for the purchase or taking of a portion of the common elements of a condominium, the condemning authority shall have the responsibility of contacting the condominium association and acquiring the most recent rolls indicating the names of the unit owners or contacting the appropriate taxing authority to obtain the names of the owners of record on the tax rolls. Notification shall be sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the unit owners of record of the condominium units by the condemning authority indicating the intent to purchase or take the required property and requesting a response from the unit owner. The condemning authority shall be responsible for the expense of sending notification pursuant to this section. Such notice shall, at a minimum, include:

(a) The name and address of the condemning authority.

(b) A written or visual description of the property.

(d) The appraisal value of the property.

(e) A clear, concise statement relating to the unit owner’s right to object to the taking or appraisal value and the procedures and effects of exercising that right.

(f) A clear, concise statement relating to the power of the association to convey the property on behalf of the unit owners if no objection to the taking or appraisal value is raised, and the effects of this alternative on the unit owner.

(3) In the absence of a response by the unit owner within 30 days, the unit owner shall be deemed to have acquiesced to the association acting as the unit owner’s representative in any subsequent proceeding relating to the parcel at issue. Unit owners who object to the purchase or taking or the appraisal of value within 30 days after the date the notice is received shall have all of their legal rights preserved with regard to the taking, the appraisal of value, and all other rights which appertain to unit ownership. Failure to raise an objection within the 30-day period shall only constitute an acquiescence by the unit owner to the association acting as the unit owner’s representative in any subsequent proceeding relating to the parcel at issue and shall not affect any other rights of the unit owner. In the event that no unit owners shall so object, the condemning authority may rely upon a power of sale vested in the condominium association. The condemning authority shall only be required to name as defendants, should eminent domain proceedings be necessitated, the association and those owners of units which shall have objected to the taking or appraisal value within the 30-day period.

(4) It is the intent of the Legislature, through the adoption of this section, to provide a mechanism to either eliminate or minimize the necessity for naming individual unit owners in eminent domain proceedings for the acquisition of a portion of the common elements of a condominium and the necessity of incidental title searches and legal actions necessitated by naming multiple unit owners as defendants.

History.—s. 1, ch. 94-336; s. 9, ch. 2008-240; s. 1, ch. 2017-5.

F.S. 73.073 on Google Scholar

F.S. 73.073 on Casetext

Amendments to 73.073

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 73.073

Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 73.073.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 73.073

Total Results: 16

YU YAN CHAN v. WILLIAM KEVIN ADDISON

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2024-04-19

Snippet: Ad Assocs., Inc. v. City of Miami, 557 So. 2d 73, 73 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (writ of certiorari not permitted

James Mobley v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2018-10-16

Citation: 263 So. 3d 117

Snippet: authority to do. See Shupe v. State, 516 So. 2d 73, 73 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987) (“[A] trial court is without

Kenneth Purdy v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2018-10-08

Citation: 257 So. 3d 567

Snippet: or stricken.” (citing Shupe v. State, 516 So. 2d 73, 73 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); Singletary v. Coronado, 673

The Leila Corporation of St. Pete v. Ossi

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2017-07-21

Citation: 230 So. 3d 488

Snippet: construction-administration-services costs; and (3) $73,073,45 to Ossi Construction’s award of unpaid construction

Haas v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2016-07-15

Citation: 196 So. 3d 515, 2016 WL 3766748

Snippet: Block v. Evans, 201 Ga.App. 294, 411 S.E.2d 73, 73 (1991) (addressing “a legal malpractice case predicated

Daniel v. Morris

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2015-12-04

Citation: 181 So. 3d 1195, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 18132, 2015 WL 7782828

Snippet: 2005) (citing Hertz Corp. v. Hellens, 140 So.2d 73, 73 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)); Knutson v. Life Care Ret.

League of Women Voters of Florida v. Detzner

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 2015-12-02

Citation: 179 So. 3d 258, 2015 WL 7753054

Snippet: Legislature .75 .64 .70 .63 .73 ,73 .46 .82 Remedial Plan ' .74 .60 .61 .57 .73 .73 .46 .81 ■ _Polsby-Popper_

Nicholas v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2010-07-28

Citation: 47 So. 3d 297, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 10838, 2010 WL 2925114

Snippet: defendant was on trial. Porter v. State, 214 So.2d 73, 73-74 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968). The juror’s employment required

Broz v. Rodriguez

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2005-02-02

Citation: 891 So. 2d 1205, 2005 WL 236176

Snippet: the statute in Hertz Corp. v. Hellens, 140 So.2d 73, 73 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962), where the second district held

Felgenhauer v. Bonds

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2004-09-10

Citation: 891 So. 2d 1043, 2004 WL 2008272

Snippet: 1998); see also Hertz Corp. v. Hellens, 140 So.2d 73, 73 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962) (holding that section 54.28

Al Estes Bonding, Inc. v. PINELLAS CTY. BD. OF CTY. COM'RS

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2003-05-07

Citation: 845 So. 2d 254, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 6652, 2003 WL 21012256

Snippet: , Dolly Bolding Bail Bonds v. State, 787 So.2d 73, 73 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Bush v. Int'l Fid. Ins. Co

McLarthy v. Shands Teaching Hospital

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1982-04-26

Citation: 413 So. 2d 130, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 19890

Snippet: partial disability. Payment was made at the rate of $73.73 per week. Appellant subsequently filed a claim for

Wilson v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1973-10-05

Citation: 284 So. 2d 24

Snippet: Appellant, v. State of Florida, Appellee. Nos. 73-73, 73-74. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second

Northwest Seventh Street Apartments, Inc. v. Shochet

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1973-09-25

Citation: 284 So. 2d 501, 1973 Fla. App. LEXIS 8804

Snippet: PER CURIAM. Affirmed.

Coleman v. West

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1973-07-27

Citation: 281 So. 2d 85, 1973 Fla. App. LEXIS 8161

Snippet: PER CURIAM. Affirmed.

Orlando Orange Groves Co. v. Hale

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1935-04-29

Citation: 161 So. 284, 119 Fla. 159, 1935 Fla. LEXIS 950

Snippet: Company was overdrawn only to the extent of $3,073.73; at the close of 1931, in the sum of $4,220.27;