Florida Supreme Court Upholds Veto of Payments for Citrus-Tree Removals
After years of litigation over whether Florida should reimburse
residents whose healthy citrus trees were cut down in an effort to
eradicate citrus canker, the Florida Supreme Court has upheld
Gov. Rick Scott’s veto of $37.4 million appropriated by the state
legislature that would have paid judgments to homeowners in two
counties. Bogorff v. Scott, No. 17-1155 (Fla., order entered July 13,
2017). From 2000 to 2006, Florida attempted to eradicate citrus
canker in the state, eventually chopping down more than 500,000
orange, grapefruit and key lime trees throughout the state located
within 1,900 feet of an infected tree, even if the trees showed no
signs of the disease.
In May 2017, lawmakers budgeted funds to pay previous
judgments awarded to homeowners in Lee and Broward counties,
two of the five counties affected. Gov. Scott used a line-item veto
to stop the budgeted payments; the Lee county plaintiffs then
sought and won an order of mandamus directing the state to pay
$14.5 million in damages plus post-judgment interest. However,
the state’s highest court has now upheld the veto by a 6-1 vote,
holding that the proper forum to challenge the governor’s veto
authority is the circuit court.
The lone dissenter, Justice Fred Lewis, reportedly criticized both
the court’s decision and the governor, pointing out that the
plaintiffs won their class action cases years ago. “This is not a
game, and our citizens should not be toyed with as if a yo-yo, and
yet that is exactly what this veto accomplishes,” Lewis wrote. “We
simply cannot allow another 10 years to go by for the Executive to
continue playing games of hide the money through a veto power
and word games in the courts. . . . Furthermore, every day that
goes by, the State owes more and more in post-judgment interest
for a judgment that has long been final.”
Concurring Justice Barbara Pariente said although the court’s
decision was correct on legal grounds, the homeowners deserved
payment after winning in court after court. “These petitioners
have the right to full compensation,” she wrote. “The time has
come for the state to pay up.” See Miami Herald and Sun Sentinel,
July 13, 2017.
Issue 640
