Ag Commish Fried Points to Lawmakers on Citrus Tree Payments
Agriculture Commissioner Nikki Fried says her department doesn't have the legal power to pay the homeowners without lawmakers including the money in the state budget.
January 28, 2020 at 01:00 PM
4 minute read
Agriculture Commissioner Nikki Fried's department says it wants to pay millions of dollars to Lee County homeowners whose healthy citrus trees were cut down as the state tried to thwart citrus-canker disease.
But first, the Legislature has to fork over the money.
That was a key argument Friday by attorneys for the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services as they asked the state Supreme Court to overturn a decision that ordered the department to compensate the homeowners.
In a 75-page brief, the department said it doesn't have the legal power to pay the homeowners without lawmakers including the money in the state budget, as they did in 2018 for property owners in two other counties.
"The department wishes to pay the judgments, but, lacking an appropriation, has no lawful way to do so," the brief said. "If the Legislature appropriates funds to pay the judgments, the department will quickly pay the judgments, as it has done in two related lawsuits in Broward County and Palm Beach County."
The brief is the latest move in a nearly two decades of litigation about whether the state should compensate residents for destroying healthy citrus trees. Fried's department went to the Supreme Court last month after the Second District Court of Appeal ordered the state to pay more than $13.6 million to the Lee County homeowners.
A panel of the appeals court in November rejected the department's contention that it could not pay the homeowners because the Legislature had not approved the money. It said that sections of state law cited by the department were unconstitutional "as applied" to the case.
The appeals court reached that conclusion because of part of the Florida Constitution that bars the government from taking property without paying full compensation. In doing so, the appeals court upheld a ruling by a Lee County circuit judge.
"[As] noted by the Lee homeowners, the underlying principle behind the Takings Clause [of the Constitution] is that the government is not immune from the obligation to pay full compensation when it takes and destroys private property. … [The] department takes the position that it will make no payment of the final judgments absent specific legislative appropriation; that it has no obligation to take any action to secure such an appropriation; and that it is up to the Legislature to decide whether to make an appropriation. We agree with the trial court that these statutes, as applied here, are contrary to the Takings Clause," the appeals court ruled.
But in the brief Friday, the department cited a 2017 decision by then-Gov. Rick Scott to veto money that would have gone to Lee County homeowners and decisions by lawmakers in 2018 and 2019 to leave the money out of the state budget. Fried's attorneys said she is seeking money again during the current legislative session to make the payments.
The class-action lawsuit was filed against the department in 2003 for taking 33,957 healthy citrus trees on 11,811 residential properties, according to the appeals-court decision. The trees were cut down as the department tried to combat citrus canker, which can cause major damage and spread rapidly.
In 2014, after a jury trial, the Lee County homeowners were awarded $13.625 million plus interest, along with hundreds of thousands of dollars in attorney fees.
Lawmakers in 2017 approved spending $37.4 million to compensate the Lee County homeowners and Broward County property owners who had filed a similar lawsuit. But Scott vetoed the money, citing "ongoing litigation" as the reason.
That led the Lee County homeowners to go back to circuit court, where Judge Keith Kyle ruled based on the Constitution's Takings Clause and directed the state to make the payments.
The brief filed Friday said lawmakers agreed in 2018 to spend $52 million to resolve the Broward and Palm Beach cases but did not include Lee County. The brief indicated Fried is seeking a total of $61 million this year for the Lee County case and to pay similar judgments in Orange County.
Jim Saunders reports for the News Service of Florida.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Stab Venequip in the Back': Caterpillar Faces $100M Lawsuit in Miami Federal Court
3 minute readAnother Roundup Trial Kicks Off in Missouri. Monsanto Faces 3 Plaintiffs
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250