on Eminent Domain § 5.03[5][c]. Similar, but more extensive, rights exist with respect to trade fixtures. Sweeting v. Hammons, 521 So.2d 226 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); 4 Nichols at § 5.03[5][c];-13.09[2]. 11 . There is some doubt that this language can be used to successfully limit the condemning authority’s liability. The Fourth District Court of Appeal has held that a landowner (e.g., fee owner) does not have the power to negotiate on behalf of other owners, which renders apportionment language useless. This means that the condemning authority can be required to pay separate compensation to any claimant not a party to the settlement, even when the settlement states it is "subject to apportionment.’’ See Sunshine Props., L.L.C. v. Fla. Dep't of Transp., 900 So.2d 714 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (<HOLDING>); see also Tilden Groves Holding Corp. v.
holding that where the landlord was aware the tenant had moved out a tenant who attached a lock to the door and accidentally retained the keys to the lock was not a holdover tenant recognizing when a lease terminates upon condemnation tenant is entitled to no compensation for loss of leasehold interest holding that written settlement with fee holder which stated that it was subject to claims for appointment if any did not require fee holder to compensate tenant for its leasehold interest and trade fixtures although these were included in the offer since tenant had not joined in the settlement and had not had the opportunity to advocate its own interests holding that the tenant was not a holdover tenant despite retaining keys because the tenant recognized the termination of the tenancy relinquished possession of the premises and the landlord was able to gain access to the property holding that a subcontracting agreement was not for the direct benefit of the tenant where the tenant was merely listed in titles on construction drawings and the indemnification provisions did not identify any third parties