CopyCited 24 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida
...cy and, in conjunction with the department, began taking steps to eradicate the disease to prevent it from spreading. The Florida Legislature, beginning at a special session in December 1984, also responded to the threat of citrus canker by enacting section 581.184, Florida Statutes (Supp....
CopyCited 15 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida
...ying privately owned citrus trees that are within 1900 feet of a tree infected with citrus canker, even though the destroyed trees show no outward signs of infection and appear healthy. To resolve this issue, we must address the constitutionality of section 581.184, Florida Statutes (2003) (Citrus Canker Law), which contains the statutory authority for the Department to destroy privately owned citrus trees under its Citrus Canker Eradication Program....
...rth District's opinion. See id. at 1044-45. However, it is the constitutionality of the subsequently passed statute, which also adopted the 1900-foot radius, which is the focus of this case. II. CITRUS CANKER LAW During the 2002 legislative session, section 581.184 was amended to require the Department to remove and destroy all citrus trees infected with the citrus canker bacteria and all citrus trees "exposed to infection." See ch.2002-11, § 1, Laws of Fla. (codified at § 581.184(2), Fla. Stat. (2003)). The Legislature defined "infected" trees as those "harboring the citrus canker bacteria and exhibiting visible symptoms of the disease." § 581.184(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2003). Citrus trees that are "[e]xposed to infection" are those "located within 1,900 feet of an infected tree." § 581.184(1)(b). [3] In order to carry out the destruction of infected and exposed trees the Department is authorized to provide notice to property owners of the removal of such trees by immediate final order (IFO). See § 581.184(2)(a)....
...The IFO serves as notice to the property owner that the subject citrus trees will be removed and destroyed unless the property owner requests and *780 obtains a stay from the appropriate district court of appeal no later than ten days after delivery of the IFO. See id. With respect to compensation, section 581.1845, Florida Statutes (2003), titled "Citrus canker eradication; compensation to homeowners whose trees have been removed," provides in pertinent part: (1) The Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services shall provide compensation to...
...(6) For the 2003-2004 fiscal year only, and notwithstanding the $100-compensation amount specified in subsection (3), the amount of compensation for each tree removed from residential property by the citrus canker eradication program shall be $55. This subsection expires July 1, 2004. (Emphasis supplied.) Section 581.1845 thus specifies that eligible homeowners receive $100 or $55 for each destroyed tree, depending on when the trees were destroyed, see § 581.1845(3), (6), and "subject to the availability of appropriated funds." § 581.1845(1). However, if "the homeowner's property is eligible for a Shade Dade or a Shade Florida Card, [4] the homeowner may not receive compensation ... for the first citrus tree removed from the property" as part of the eradication program. See § 581.1845(3) (emphasis supplied). Lastly, subsection (4) of section 581.1845 states that the per-tree amount paid under this compensation program " does not limit the amount of any other compensation that may be paid by another entity or pursuant to court order. " § 581.1845(4) (emphasis supplied)....
...This case involves the destruction of private property under the State's *782 police power, which implicates substantive due process concerns. As they did below, the parties first dispute the appropriate standard of review to be applied in deciding whether the 2002 amendment to section 581.184 denies substantive due process....
...A forfeiture, on the other hand, results in an actual loss of all property to the owner. Haire,
836 So.2d at 1051. The petitioners claim that Corneal's strict standard of review applies to the Citrus Canker Law because the statute does not obligate the State to pay just and full compensation, even though section
581.1845 requires the Department to provide compensation "to eligible homeowners whose citrus trees have been removed under a citrus canker eradication program." §
581.1845(1). The petitioners contend that the compensation provided for in section
581.1845 is inadequate to bring the statute within the ambit of the deferential reasonable relationship test because it represents only "token compensation" rather than full and just compensation, and because it is subject to Legislative appropriations....
...those values would not provide just compensation. See id. at 31. In this case, we conclude that under the statutory scheme the State is obligated to provide more than token compensation if the State has destroyed a healthy, albeit exposed tree. [10] Section 581.1845 expressly states that the specified per-tree amount "does not limit the amount of any other compensation that may be paid ... pursuant to court order for the removal of citrus trees as part of a citrus canker eradication program." § 581.1845(4) (emphasis supplied)....
...We emphasize that the fact that the Legislature has determined that all citrus trees within 1900 feet of an infected tree must be destroyed does not necessarily support a finding that healthy, but exposed, residential citrus trees have no value. [11] Moreover, the statement in section 581.1845 that compensation is subject to the availability of appropriated funds does not relieve the State from its responsibility to provide full and just compensation....
...We next consider whether the Fourth District correctly concluded that the Citrus Canker Law did not violate substantive due process because it was "neither arbitrary nor capricious and bears a reasonable relationship to the goal of canker eradication." Haire,
836 So.2d at 1053. In holding section
581.184 unconstitutional the trial court focused not only on the perceived lack of compensation for the removal of healthy trees but also on its finding that the science underlying the Gottwald study is unsound and, therefore, not an acceptable basis for the Legislature to enact the 1900-foot removal radius....
...f Law Enforcement,
588 So.2d at 960, and requires both fair notice and a reasonable opportunity to be heard. See Keys Citizens for Responsible Gov't, Inc. v. Fla. Keys Aqueduct Auth.,
795 So.2d 940, 948 (Fla.2001). The petitioners do not assert that section
581.184 provides for inadequate notice of the intended removal of exposed trees, but contend that the lack of a pre-deprivation hearing denies tree owners a meaningful opportunity to be heard on the propriety of the Department's removal order....
CopyCited 10 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2001 WL 770096
...opt pursuant to the rulemaking procedures of the APA. The Department exceeded its delegated authority by defining "exposed" in its Emergency Rule in a manner inconsistent with the legislature's definition of "exposed to infection" as set forth in section 581.184, Florida Statutes (2000)....
CopyCited 10 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2003 WL 118257
...e trial court's temporary injunction declaring the 2002 Citrus Canker Law amendments unconstitutional and enjoining the Department from entering upon private property without individually issued search warrants. The issues presented are: (1) whether section 581.184, Florida Statutes (2002), requiring the removal of citrus trees within 1900 feet of a tree infected with canker, violates substantive and procedural due process; (2) whether the Department has the authority to conduct warrantless sear...
...if area-wide search warrants are unconstitutional, whether individual search warrants each supported by a separate affidavit of probable cause and signed by a neutral magistrate, without the use of an electronic signature, are mandated. We hold that section
581.184 does not violate due process and is therefore constitutional, but that section
933.07(2) does violate the Fourth Amendment....
...erty without just compensation, and permits unreasonable searches and seizures. Appellees moved for a temporary injunction, which the trial court granted after an extensive hearing. In its order, the court made the following conclusions: 1) sections
581.184 and
933.07 are unconstitutional because they violate Article I, Section 12 of the Florida Constitution and the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution; 2) the scientific principles upon which section
581.184 is founded are unsound and do not provide adequate justification for the legislature to abrogate the rights of property owners; 3) citrus trees that do not patently demonstrate citrus canker pathogens do have a value and cannot be des...
...erty without a search warrant, as well as the Department's petition for writ of certiorari for the review of the trial court's denial of the Department's application for sixty-nine search warrants. Constitutionality of 2002 Citrus Canker Legislation Section 581.184(2)(a), Florida Statutes (2002), provides: The department shall remove and destroy all infected citrus trees and all citrus trees exposed to infection....
...al order from the district court of appeal with jurisdiction to review such requests. The property owner shall not be required to seek a stay of the immediate final order by the department prior to seeking the stay from the district court of appeal. § 581.184(2)(a) (emphasis added). A citrus tree is infected when it "harbor[s] the citrus canker bacteria and exhibit[s] visible symptoms of the disease." § 581.184(1)(a). A citrus tree is exposed to infection when it is "located within 1,900 feet of an infected tree." § 581.184(1)(b). [1] Section 581.1845, Florida Statutes (2002), provides for compensation for the destruction of homeowners' trees in the amount of $55 per tree or $100 per tree, depending upon the time of removal. § 581.1845(3), (6). In its order the court found that section 581.184 was unconstitutional because it constituted a taking without just compensation and without either procedural or substantive due process....
...Furthermore, the availability of inverse condemnation proceedings provides the avenue for judicial review the trial court found lacking. The statute does not remove from the judge the issue of whether a taking has occurred. Nor does it remove from the jury the determination of value. Although section 581.1845 provides for a set amount of compensation per tree, it provides that the per-tree compensation "does not limit the amount of any other compensation that may be paid by another entity or pursuant to court order for the removal of citrus trees as part of a citrus canker eradication program." § 581.1845(4) (emphasis added)....
...Where the Department is seeking a search warrant based upon an affidavit stating that the properties sought to be inspected either harbor known infected trees or are properties within 1900 feet of an infected tree, it is basing probable cause on reasonable legislative standards. See § 581.184....
...However, technologically there is no reason why the Department could not provide the judge the software, expertise, and assistance to issue such warrants without the judge actually permitting the Department to electronically sign the warrants on the judge's behalf. In summary, we conclude and hold that section 581.184 is constitutional....
...Bonanno,
568 So.2d 24, 30 (Fla.1990), approved an administrative compensation plan for trees destroyed under the citrus canker eradication program, the provisions of that law do not apply here. Instead, the Legislature adopted a per-tree compensation allotment for destroyed trees. See §
581.1845....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
...City's suit. The City, however, sought a temporary injunction solely in its capacity as an enforcement agency. Hence, these individual property owners did not join in the City's motion for temporary injunction and are not parties to this appeal. [2] Section 581.184(7), Fla....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida
...immediate energies to preparing for an expeditious permanent injunction hearing. That would permit this Court, or the Florida Supreme Court if this Court determines it appropriate, to consider any alleged error from resolution of the actual merits. Section 581.184, Florida Statutes enacted by the Legislature in 2002, is a complex statutory scheme....
...In sum, this litigation in one form or another has been proceeding for over two years. The Fourth District is in as good, if not better, position to deal with these interlocutory orders and any incipient emergencies. If we eventually are called upon to adjudicate the constitutionality of section 581.184 or any related issues, our decision will be a more informed one because of that intermediate appellate review....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2001 WL 76954
...re necessary, to destroy those trees and plants actually or likely to be infected. The rule provides for the destruction of trees and plants, not real estate. The Department fashioned this rule pursuant to the grant of legislative authority found in section 581.184(2), Florida Statutes (2000), which directed it to promulgate rules identifying the circumstances under which plants and trees may be destroyed for the purpose of controlling or *929 eradicating citrus canker disease....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 2005 WL 856890
...3d DCA 1999), the petitioners had no cause of action because the trees had no marketable value. The Third District denied the petitioners' motion for rehearing but certified the above-mentioned question to this Court as one of great public importance. In 2002, section 581.184(1)(b), Florida Statutes, was amended to state in pertinent part: "Exposed to infection" means citrus trees located within 1900 feet of an infected tree. Section 581.184(2)(a) was amended to state in pertinent part: The department shall remove and destroy all infected citrus trees and all citrus trees exposed to infection. § 581.184, Fla. Stat. (2002). Section 581.1845 was added to provide compensation to eligible homeowners whose citrus trees have been removed under a citrus canker eradication program. Included within the eligible homeowners were homeowners who have had one or more citrus trees removed from the property by a tree-cutting contractor as part of a citrus canker eradication program on or after January 1, 1995. *1007 Section 581.1845, Florida Statutes, states: Citrus canker eradication; compensation to homeowners whose trees have been removed....
...The Department's actions in the Program are pursuant to Florida law. In particular, the Department may: "require the destruction of plants for the purpose of eradicating, controlling, or preventing the dissemination of citrus canker disease in this state," see § 581.184, Fla....
...rees. Patchen v. State Dep't of Agric. & Consumer Servs ., No. 00-29271 CA 22, order at 3-5 (Fla. 11th Cir. Ct. Summary Final Judgment Apr. 23, 2001). The 2002 statute clearly intends that the petitioners be included within the homeowners covered by section 581.1845(2) in that their citrus trees were removed as part of a citrus canker eradication program after January 1, 1995. Polk does not apply to these homeowners. Rather, these homeowners and others similarly situated who meet the requirements of section 581.1845(2)(a), (b), and (c), may receive compensation pursuant to that statute as construed and upheld in our decision in Haire v....
...Florida Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services,
870 So.2d 774 (Fla.2004). In Haire, we specifically stated: In this case, we conclude that under the statutory scheme the State is obligated to provide more than token compensation if the State has destroyed a healthy, albeit exposed tree. Section
581.1845 expressly states that the specified per-tree amount "does not limit the amount of any other compensation that may be paid ... pursuant to court order for the removal of citrus trees as part of a citrus canker eradication program." §
581.1845(4) (emphasis supplied)....
...QUINCE, J., dissents with an opinion. CANTERO, J., recused. PARIENTE, C.J., concurring. I concur in the majority opinion because, as construed in our decision in Haire v. Florida Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services,
870 So.2d 774, 785 (Fla.2004), section
581.1845(2), Florida Statutes (2004), requires the State to pay just and fair compensation for the destruction of the homeowners' citrus trees....
...er and to quash the decision of the Third District. However, I write to voice my disagreement with the majority opinion, which intentionally avoids discussion of common law rights and by implication holds today that the only remedy is pursuant to section 581.1845 of the Florida Statutes (2001), which attempted to retroactively provide a statutory right of "compensation to eligible homeowners whose citrus trees have been removed under a citrus canker eradication program," § 581.1845(1), Fla....
...itations omitted). Under these circumstances, the affected parties may have both statutory and common law relief available but not as presented by the majority. QUINCE, J., dissenting. I cannot agree with the majority that this case is controlled by section 581.184, Florida Statutes (2002), because that statutory provision, allowing for the destruction of citrus trees that are located within 1900 feet of an infected tree, was not in existence at the time the Patchens' cause of action against the Department arose....
...trees did not compel state reimbursement, applied in a case like this, where the State destroyed healthy residential citrus trees. The majority has found that Polk is not applicable to this case, and that this case is resolved by the application of section
581.1845(2) Florida Statutes, and Haire v. Florida Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services,
870 So.2d 774 (Fla.2004). I agree with the majority that Polk is not applicable to this case. However, I do not agree that section
581.1845(2) and Haire sufficiently answer the certified question because neither the statute nor the case law was in effect at the time the cause of action arose. The majority has called section
581.1845(2) remedial in nature....
...ake away vested rights are exempt from the general rule against retrospective application). In this case the statute creates a new right to recover a certain sum of money, and the majority's solution to limit the Patchens' remedy to that afforded in section 581.1845(2), without expressly holding that the summary denial of the Patchens' *1011 inverse condemnation claim was erroneous, effectively denies the Patchens a vested right to pursue such a claim....
...In this case, however, we have no record to determine whether there is substantial competent evidence to support the determination that the Patchens' destroyed trees have no market value. Thus, Polk is in a different procedural posture than this case, and is not applicable. Section 581.1845(2) does not resolve this case....
...e amount of $55 per tree. Although this statute is remedial and reaches back to events occurring on or after January 1995, as explained above, this statute should not be applied retroactively. The decision in Haire addresses the constitutionality of section
581.184, Florida Statutes (2003) (Citrus Canker Law), which contains the statutory authority for the Department to destroy privately owned citrus trees under its Citrus Canker Eradication Program. In Haire, this Court discussed section
581.1845 and noted that the subsection addressing compensation was to expire July 1, 2004. See Haire,
870 So.2d at 779. The Court also noted that compensation under this statute is "subject to the availability of appropriated funds." §
581.1845(1)....
...*1013 I would therefore quash the Third District's decision and remand this case to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing on the disputed issues of fact. While I believe that an evidentiary hearing on the disputed issues is proper, I do not agree with the majority that this case can be resolved by applying section 581.1845(2), Florida Statutes, and Haire v....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2012 WL 3964983, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 15240
...ANALYSIS On appeal, the Department raises four arguments. Specifically, the Department asserts that: (1) the loss of the trees is not compensable because the destroyed citrus trees constituted a public nuisance; (2) the homeowners have neither a private cause of action for additional compensation under section 581.1845, Florida Statutes, nor a claim for inverse condemnation under Patchen v....
...We find no merit to any of the Department’s four *1141 arguments, and affirm the trial court’s order granting class certification. We do, however, address the Department’s second and third arguments. A. Private Right of Action vs. Inverse Condemnation With regard to its second argument, the Department asserts that section 581.1845, Florida Statutes (providing for “compensation to eligible homeowners whose citrus trees have been removed under a citrus canker eradication program”) does not create a private cause of action, and further, that the homeowners’ inverse condemnation claim is precluded by Patchen ....
...& Consumer Servs. v. Bogorff,
35 So.3d 84 , 90 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010), review denied,
48 So.3d 835 (Fla.2010), cert. denied, — U.S. -,
131 S.Ct. 2874 ,
179 L.Ed.2d 1188 (2011). The relevant compensation portion of Florida’s Citrus Canker Law, §
581.1845(4), Fla....
...When the State destroys private property, the State is obligated to pay just and fair compensation as determined in a court of law.” (quoting Haire,
870 So.2d at 785 )). In sum, it is not only beyond legislative purview to displace the constitutional requirement of just compensation upon a taking, but section
581.1845 expressly contemplates the entry of a court order obligating the State to compensate a homeowner for the destruction of his or her residential citrus trees under the CCEP in excess of the statutory per-tree amount. The Florida Supreme Court, finding the statute remedial, gave section
581.1845 its *1142 plain meaning, “which is to provide compensation to homeowners who had trees destroyed on or after January 1, 1995.” Patchen,
906 So.2d at 1008 ....
...Co.,
73 So.3d 91, 98 (Fla.2011); United Auto. Ins. Co. v. Diagnostics of S. Fla., Inc.,
921 So.2d 23, 25 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006); Neighborhood Health P'ship, Inc. v. Fischer,
913 So.2d 703, 706 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005). Absent an abuse of that discretion, the trial court's order must be affirmed. . Section
581.1845, Florida Statutes (2006), was repealed in 2010....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida
...ying privately owned citrus trees that are within 1900 feet of a tree infected with citrus canker, even though the destroyed trees show no outward signs of infection and appear healthy. To resolve this issue, we must address the constitutionality of section 581.184, Florida Statutes (2003) (Citrus Canker Law), which contains the statutory authority for the Department to destroy privately owned citrus trees under its Citrus Canker Eradication Program....
...h District’s opinion. See id. at 1044-45. However, it is the constitutionality of the subsequently passed statute, which also adopted the 1900-foot radius, which is the focus of this case. II. CITRUS CANKER LAW During the 2002 legislative session, section 581.184 was amended to require the Department to remove and destroy all citrus trees infected with the citrus canker bacteria and all citrus trees “exposed to infection.” See ch.2002-11, § 1, Laws of Fla. (codified at § 581.184(2), Fla. Stat. (2003)). The Legislature defined “infected” trees as those “harboring the citrus canker bacteria and exhibiting visible symptoms of the disease.” § 581.184(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (2003). Citrus trees that are “[e]xposed to infection” are those “located within 1,900 feet of an infected tree.” § 581.184(l)(b). 3 In order to carry out the destruction of infected and exposed trees the Department is authorized to provide notice to property owners of the removal of such trees by immediate final order (IFO). See § 581.184(2)(a)....
...The IFO serves as notice to the property owner that the subject citrus trees will be removed and destroyed unless the property owner requests and *780 obtains a stay from the appropriate district court of appeal no later than ten days after delivery of the IFO. See id. With respect to compensation, section 581.1845, Florida Statutes (2003), titled “Citrus canker eradication; compensation to homeowners whose trees have been removed,” provides in pertinent part: (1) The Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services shall provide compensatio...
...(6) For the 2003-2004 fiscal year only, and notwithstanding the $100-compen-sation amount specified in subsection (3), the amount of compensation for each tree removed from residential property by the citrus canker eradication program shall be $55. This subsection expires July 1, 2004. (Emphasis supplied.) Section 581.1845 thus specifies that eligible homeowners receive $100 or $55 for each destroyed tree, depending on when the trees were destroyed, see § 581.1845(3), (6), and “subject to the availability of appropriated funds.” § 581.1845(1). However, if “the homeowner’s property is eligible for a Shade Dade or a Shade Florida Card, 4 the homeowner may not receive compensation ... for the first citrus tree removed from the property” as part of the eradication program. See § 581.1845(3) (emphasis supplied). Lastly, subsection (4) of section 581.1845 states that the per-tree amount paid under this compensation program “does not limit the amount of any other compensation that may be paid by another entity or pursuant to court order.” § 581.1845(4) (emphasis supplied)....
...This case involves the destruction of private property under the State’s *782 police power, which implicates substantive due process concerns. As they did below, the parties first dispute the appropriate standard of review to be applied in deciding whether the 2002 amendment to section 581.184 denies substantive due process....
...A forfeiture, on the other hand, results in an actual loss of all property to the owner. Havre,
836 So.2d at 1051 . The petitioners claim that Comeal’s strict standard of review applies to the Citrus Canker Law because the statute does not obligate the State to pay just and full compensation, even though section
581.1845 requires the Department to provide compensation “to eligible homeowners whose citrus trees have been removed under a citrus canker eradication program.” §
581.1845(1). The petitioners contend that the compensation provided for in section
581.1845 is inadequate to bring the statute within the ambit of the deferential reasonable relationship test because it represents only “token compensation” rather than full and just compensation, and because it is subject to Legislative appropriations....
...those values would not provide just compensation. See id. at 31 . In this case, we conclude that under the statutory scheme the State is obligated to provide more than token compensation if the State has destroyed a healthy, albeit exposed tree. 10 Section 581.1845 expressly states that the specified per-tree amount “does not limit the amount of any other compensation that may be paid ... pursuant to court order for the removal of citrus trees as part of a citrus canker eradication program.” § 581.1845(4) (emphasis supplied)....
...We emphasize that the fact that the Legislature has determined that all citrus trees within 1900 feet of an infected tree must be destroyed does not necessarily support a finding that healthy, but exposed, residential citrus trees have no value. 11 Moreover, the statement in section 581.1845 that compensation is subject to the availability of appropriated funds does not relieve the State from its responsibility to provide full and just compensation....
...We next consider whether the Fourth District correctly concluded that the Citrus Canker Law did not violate substantive due process because it was “neither arbitrary nor capricious and bears a reasonable relationship to the goal of canker eradication.” Havre, 886 So.2d at 1053. In holding section 581.184 unconstitutional the trial court focused not only on the perceived lack of compensation for the removal of healthy trees but also on its finding that the science underlying the Gottwald study is unsound and, therefore, not an acceptable basis for the Legislature to enact the 1900-foot removal radius....
...aw Enforcement,
588 So.2d at 960 , and requires both fair notice and a reasonable opportunity to be heard. See Keys Citizens for Responsible Gov’t, Inc. v. Fla. Keys Aqueduct Auth.,
795 So.2d 940, 948 (Fla.2001). The petitioners do not assert that section
581.184 provides for inadequate notice of the intended removal of exposed trees, but contend that the lack of a pre-deprivation hearing denies tree owners a meaningful opportunity to be heard on the propriety of the Department’s removal order....
CopyPublished | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 15633, 2003 WL 22358436
...Consumer Services advising her that her citrus trees would be destroyed because the trees are infected with citrus canker or are exposed to citrus canker by being located within 1900 feet of diseased trees. Spears challenges the constitutionality of section 581.184, Florida Statutes, governing citrus canker eradication....
CopyPublished | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2013 WL 5628727, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 16396
...artment obtained another study which established a 1,900-foot radius from an infected tree, within which exposed trees should be destroyed to prevent spread and eradicate the disease. The Department first adopted a rule, followed by the enactment of section 581.184, Florida Statutes (2003), requiring the destruction of infected trees and all trees within a 1,900-foot radius of an infected tree. Section 581.184, Florida Statutes, provided methods of implementing the plan, and section 581.1845, Florida Statutes (2003), authorized compensation to homeowners for trees removed pursuant to the program at a set amount of $100 per tree....
...1 In apparent recognition of the constitutional implications of the taking of private *370 property, the statute specifically provided that the compensation provided in the statute did not limit the amount which may be provided by court order for trees destroyed through the program. § 581.1845(4), Fla. Stat. (2003). In Haire, our supreme court upheld the constitutionality of section 581.1845 as a valid exercise of the state’s police power requiring compensation for destroyed trees which were uninfected, albeit exposed: [W]e conclude that under the statutory scheme the State is obligated to provide more than token compensation if the State has destroyed a healthy, albeit exposed tree.10 Section 581.1845 expressly states that the specified per-tree amount “does not limit the amount of any other compensation that may be paid ... pursuant to court order for the removal of citrus trees as part of a citrus canker eradication program.” § 581.1845(4) (emphasis supplied)....
...al trees within 1,900 feet of an infected tree also were of no value, and thus required that no compensation be paid for their destruction. In Patchen , the court answered that question by stating that homeowners whose trees were within the ambit of section 581.1845 were not governed by Polk because the Legislature itself had established that they were due compensation for their trees: The 2002 statute clearly intends that the petitioners be included within the homeowners covered by section 581.1845(2) in that their citrus trees were removed as part of a citrus canker eradication program after January 1, 1995. Polk does not apply to these homeowners. Rather, these homeowners and others similarly situated who meet the requirements of section 581.1845(2)(a), (b), and (c), may receive compensation pursuant to that statute as construed and upheld in our decision in Haire .......
...A professional economist then calculated the average price of a tree destroyed during the program. Based upon the agreed total of 66,468 non-infected trees destroyed, he opined that the aggregate amount due to the class was $29,135,713.00, prior to reductions for the compensation paid pursuant to section 581.1845 and other grants given by Palm Beach County....
...After the final judgment, this court decided Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services v. Bogorff,
35 So.3d 84 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied,
48 So.3d 835 (Fla.2010), an identical class action involving homeowners of destroyed citrus trees in Broward County. In Bogorff , we held that the compensation remedy provided in section
581.1845, did not supplant inverse condemnation as a remedy for a constitutional taking: If it is not yet clear, the point is that the common law and statutory provisions for inverse condemnation do not displace the constitutional requirement for just compensation when the State destroys privately owned property to aid some industry. The only effect of §
581.1845 is to set an opening bid for the price the State will pay without litigation....
...ded that the statute did not apply because they did not contest the fact that the State was exercising its inherent authority pursuant to the police power in destroying the citrus trees. Indeed, Haire clearly established the State’s power to enact section 581.1845 and to destroy the trees....
...We affirm as to all of the remaining issues presented. Reversed and remanded for a neiv trial on compensation in accordance with this opinion. DAMOORGIAN, C.J., and CONNER, J., concur. . For trees destroyed during the 2003-04 fiscal year, the Legislature authorized only $55 per tree. § 581.1845(6), Fla....
CopyPublished | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 17708, 2003 WL 22736472
...efective. They also do not dispute the fact that their citrus trees fall within 1900 feet of trees diseased by citrus canker. Accordingly, the IFO can be affirmed on that basis alone. However, we will briefly address the Meszaroses’ arguments. *87 Section 581.184, Florida Statutes (2002) mandates that the “Department shall remove and destroy all infected citrus trees and all citrus trees exposed to an infection.” It further defines citrus trees “exposed to infection” as those trees “located within 1900 feet of an infected tree.” The Meszaroses argue that the 1900 foot boundary established in section 581.184 is based upon scientific and statistical data showing that the probability of capturing all diseased trees is 95.5% and the probability of not capturing a diseased tree is 4.5%....
CopyPublished | Supreme Court of Florida
error from resolution of the actual merits. Section
581.184, Florida Statutes enacted by the Legislature
CopyPublished | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 427, 2004 WL 89611
...t’s order. Any samples collected after the order are to be in accordance with the procedures outlined by the trial court’s order at issue herein. 1 The trial court found that the department’s existing methodology did not assure compliance with section 581.184, Florida Statutes, in that the department was not using its stated methodology, and that such methodology, even if followed, would not achieve the goal of eradication. We conclude that Appel-lees were required to exhaust administrative remedies and, therefore, reverse the order granting temporary injunctive relief. Section 581.184 defines a citrus tree exposed to infection as one located within 1,900 feet of an infected tree. 2 Before the legislature’s enactment of section 581.184, in 2002, the 1900 foot buffer zone was a “rule” adopted by the department in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act as an “emergency rule.” See 5BER00-4, 26 Fla....
...ntific community to eradicate the disease and that the trial court erred in rejecting the legislative choice based upon its own view of the scientific evidence presented. 3 This case picks up where City of Pompano Beach and Haire left off. Accepting section 581.184 in light of Haire , the trial judge, considering Appellees’ renewed request for injunctive relief, outlined the procedures for the agency to follow to properly apply the 1900 foot buffer zone to assist eradication efforts....
...Deposition testimony from the department employees was presented to support the plaintiffs’ motion. Pursuant to City of Pompano Beach , and our reasoning therein, Appel-lees were required to exhaust administrative remedies to challenge the department’s implementation of section 581.184....
...sease.” The 2002 citrus canker law requires the department to issue an immediate final order (IFO) to each person it has determined owns a citrus tree located within 1,900 feet of a tree infected with citrus canker and must, therefore, be removed. § 581.184(2)(b), Fla....
...tted and any additions made thereto in accordance with paragraph (7)(a). Pursuant to 2002 legislation, the IFO provides the location of the infected tree, the distance between the infected and exposed trees, and the underlying diagnostic report. See § 581.184(2) & (4), Fla....
...IFO is delivered. . This subsection of the statute is repealed effective July 1, 2005, and will be reviewed by the legislature prior to that date. See Haire,
836 So.2d at 1046 , n. 1 (citing ch.2002-11, § 4, at 314, Laws of Fla.). . Haire held that section
581.184 was constitutional, as it neither violated substantive or procedural due process. The casé was reversed with direction to quash the temporary injunction. In light of such, the department could destroy both infected and "exposed” trees as set forth in section
581.184....
CopyPublished | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 19967, 2005 WL 3478203
...nd their potential liability is not an issue in this appeal. Section
581.031(15)(a), Florida Statutes, grants inspectors the “power to enter into or upon any place” thought to house or contain anything that could threaten agricultural interests. Section
581.184, Florida Statutes, 1 further requires the sheriff to provide assistance and protection to the department employees and agents in obtaining access to such property....
...Notwithstanding that it may not have been necessary to arrest Vaughn, the trial court did not err in concluding that the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. Therefore, the consolidated orders of dismissal are affirmed. MAY, J., concurs. FARMER, J., dissents with opinion. . See 581.184(7), Fla....
