Lynwood and Myrtle Viverette v. State of Florida Department of Transportation and Robert McCarthy, 227 So. 3d 1274

In Feb. 2016 the Florida Department of Transportation filed a petition to condemn part of Lynwood and Myrtle Viverette’s property (parcel 121) and attached a December 2014 "project resolution" adopting right‑of‑way maps plus a parcel resolution listing parcel 121.
The trial court denied the first petition because the Department had not shown necessity for condemning the entire parcel 121.
In Nov. 2016 the Department filed a second petition to condemn a smaller portion (parcel 121R); the parcel resolution was updated but the Department reattached the original 2014 project resolution (with the old maps) to the second petition.
Appellants argued the 2014 project resolution adopted outdated right‑of‑way maps and therefore the petition failed to identify the property sought as required by section 73.021, Florida Statutes; the Department argued the attachment was sufficient.
The trial court granted the second petition; the First DCA reviewed whether the attached 2014 resolution rendered the petition defective and whether the statutory pleading requirements were jurisdictional.
The First DCA concluded the petition was defective because the attached project resolution adopted outdated maps that did not reflect parcel 121R, reversed the Order of Taking, and remanded with leave to permit the Department to seek to amend its petition.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the petition properly identified the property where the attached project resolution adopted outdated right‑of‑way maps	Viverette: 2014 resolution adopted maps that do not show parcel 121R, so the petition fails § 73.021’s description requirement	DOT: reattaching the 2014 resolution was sufficient; parcel resolution lists 121R	Court: Petition defective because the attached project resolution controls and did not authorize condemnation of parcel 121R; dismissal required
Whether pleading defects under § 73.021 are jurisdictional, preventing amendment after dismissal	Viverette: statutory defects should bar proceedings and may be treated as jurisdictional	DOT: trial court retains power to allow amendment to cure pleading defects	Court: Pleading requirements are not subject‑matter jurisdictional; court retains jurisdiction to allow amendment; reversed and remanded allowing DOT to seek leave to amend

Tosohatchee Game Preserve, Inc. v. Cent. & S. Fla. Flood Control Dist., 265 So. 2d 681 (Fla. 1972) (petition must be accompanied by authorizing resolution adopted before initiating condemnation)
Florida Power & Light Co. v. Canal Authority, 423 So. 2d 421 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982) (pleading deficiencies do not deprive trial court of subject‑matter jurisdiction over condemnation suits)
Cunningham v. Standard Guaranty Ins. Co., 630 So. 2d 179 (Fla. 1994) (subject‑matter jurisdiction concerns power to hear class of cases, not the merits of a particular pleading)
Ginsberg v. Lennar Fla. Holdings, Inc., 645 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (attachments to pleadings control where they contradict the petition)
Bott v. City of Marathon, 949 So. 2d 295 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (trial court must consider exhibits attached to a condemning authority’s petition)
Dep’t of Envtl. Prot. v. Gibbins, 696 So. 2d 888 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) (strict construction and substantial compliance required for condemnation petitions)
City of Ocala v. Red Oak Farm, Inc., 636 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994) (defective petitions will not permit property to be taken)
Fladell v. Palm Beach Cty. Canvassing Bd., 772 So. 2d 1240 (Fla. 2000) (attachments become integral parts of pleadings)