Court grapples with citrus canker 'taking' payments

BY THE NEWS SERVICE OF FLORIDA

In a debate centering on whether legislative approval is needed, an appeals court next week will hear arguments in a battle about payments in a class-action lawsuit about the state's removal of tens of thousands of citrus trees in Broward County. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of 58,225 homeowners because of the destruction of trees related to the state's effort to eradicate a deadly disease known as citrus canker, according to a brief filed last year in the 4th District Court of Appeal by attorneys for the plaintiffs.

The case led to a 2008 judgment against the state for about $8 million plus interest and a 2014 judgment for attorney fees and costs of more than $4.1 million plus interest, the brief said. But the state contends that payments need to be approved by the Legislature through the budget or a "claim" bill. Rep. Jose Felix Diaz, R-Miami, and Sen. Anitere Flores, R-Miami, filed budget amendments in 2014 seeking about $15 million but withdrew the proposed amendments at the request of legislative leaders, according to the brief.

The 4th District Court of Appeal is scheduled to hear arguments Monday, with the plaintiffs' attorneys arguing the state should be required to make the payments. "The constitutional guaranty of full compensation for judicially determined takings is a cornerstone of our society,'' the plaintiffs' brief said. "Absent such a guaranty, the state would have free rein to take or destroy private property, and a final judgment declaring a constitutional taking and awarding full compensation to the private property owners could be ignored."

But lawyers for the state Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services countered in a brief that legislative approval of such spending is required. "Under the constitutional principle of separation of powers, the judicial branch must allow the legislative branch discretion over payment of government obligation. … The judicial branch may not interfere with the legislative branch by requiring funds to be spent in a manner not authorized by statute,'' the department brief said.