FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D2022-3142

_____________________________

FLORIDA WILDLIFE FEDERATION,

INC., ST. JOHNS RIVERKEEPER, INC.,

ENVIRONMENTAL CONFEDERATION

OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, INC., SIERRA 

CLUB, INC., and MANLEY FULLER,

Appellants,

v.

FLORIDA LEGISLATURE, FLORIDA 

DEFENDERS OF THE ENVIRONMENT,

INC., LAUREL M. LEE, in her official 

capacity as Florida Secretary of 

State, et al.,

Appellees.

_____________________________

No. 1D2022-3463

_____________________________

FLORIDA DEFENDERS OF THE

ENVIRONMENT, INC.,

Appellants,

v.

LAUREL M. LEE, in her official capacity

as Florida Secretary of State,

FLORIDA WILDLIFE FEDERATION, INC.,
2

WILTON SIMPSON, as President of the 

Florida Senate, et al.,

Appellees.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County.

J. Lee Marsh, Judge.

February 14, 2024

PER CURIAM.

These two cases were consolidated below and again on appeal, 

both involving environmental groups challenging some of the 

Florida Legislature’s 2015 and 2016 appropriations from the Land 

Acquisition Trust Fund, codified in Article X, section 28, of the 

Florida Constitution (LATF). The trial court rendered a final 

judgment based on its summary judgment in favor of the state 

defendants and against the environmental groups. We affirm, and 

write only to address the issue of mootness.

The LATF provision specifies that “[f]unds in the Land 

Acquisition Trust Fund shall be expended only for the following 

purposes:”

(1) As provided by law, to finance or refinance: the 

acquisition and improvement of land, water areas, and 

related property interests, including conservation 

easements, and resources for conservation lands 

including wetlands, forests, and fish and wildlife habitat; 

wildlife management areas; lands that protect water 

resources and drinking water sources, including lands 

protecting the water quality and quantity of rivers, lakes, 

streams, springsheds, and lands providing recharge for 

groundwater and aquifer systems; lands in the 

Everglades Agricultural Area and the Everglades 

Protection Area, as defined in Article II, Section 7(b); 

beaches and shores; outdoor recreation lands, including 

recreational trails, parks, and urban open space; rural 
3

landscapes; working farms and ranches; historic or 

geologic sites; together with management, restoration of 

natural systems, and the enhancement of public access or 

recreational enjoyment of conservation lands.

(2) To pay the debt service on bonds issued 

pursuant to Article VII, Section 11(e).

Art. X, § 28(b)(1)–(2), Fla. Const.

Between 2015 and 2018, the environmental plaintiffs filed an 

original complaint plus five amended complaints, all challenging

Legislative appropriations from the LATF made in the 2015–16

fiscal year. All of the complaints requested that the court declare 

the specified appropriations improper, and all but the first asked 

the court to order the allegedly misappropriated and mis-spent 

funds returned to the LATF. 

The first complaint, filed in June of 2015, set forth what the 

plaintiffs considered lawful 2015 appropriations from the LATF, 

asserting without specificity that all other 2015 appropriations 

from the fund were improper. The first amended complaint, filed 

in August of 2015, alleged as improper seven categories of 2015 

appropriations, some listing numerous individual appropriations. 

The second and third amended complaints, filed in December of 

2015 and March of 2016, respectively, specified twelve categories 

of 2015 and 2016 appropriations, again including numerous 

individual appropriations in each category as being improper.

The fourth amended complaint, filed in 2017, organized the 

allegedly improper 2015–16 appropriations according to the 

receiving agency, specifying numerous individual appropriations 

throughout: eight groupings of appropriations to the Department 

of Agriculture and Consumer Services; six to the Department of 

Environmental Protection; six to the Department of State; and five 

to the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. The fifth and 

final amended complaint, filed May 5, 2018, again alleged specific 

2015–16 appropriations and expenditures broken down by the 

same receiving agencies.
4

After long delays in the litigation, the trial court heard crossmotions for summary judgment in October of 2021. It was 

undisputed that the challenged 2015–16 appropriations had 

already been spent or contractually obligated, or had reverted to 

the LATF. For this reason, the defendants argued that the 

plaintiffs’ claims had become moot. The trial court agreed and 

entered summary judgment for the defendants.

We agree with the trial court’s determination of mootness. 

Key to our analysis is the narrow scope within which the plaintiffs 

consistently framed their claims. They alone controlled their 

pleadings, and they challenged only the validity of specific 2015–

16 appropriations, asking the trial court to order those funds 

returned to the LATF. Once those appropriations were completed

or reverted and the fiscal year ended, however, no remedy 

remained within reach of the active complaint as pleaded, through 

no fault of the defendants. The claims were moot.

As did the trial court, we find a useful example in the supreme 

court’s action in Department of Administration v. Horne, 269 So. 

2d 659 (Fla. 1972). The merits issue was the existence of standing 

in a constitutional challenge to fifty-five appropriations, but the 

fiscal year expired while the appeal was pending. Id. at 660. The 

supreme court concluded that, “The protracted litigation in this 

cause has now consumed the fiscal year involved; accordingly, the 

substantive matters affected thereupon became moot and 

dismissal of the proceeding will be appropriate.” Id. at 663.

We affirm the trial court judgment in this and all other 

respects.

AFFIRMED.

OSTERHAUS, C.J., and KELSEY and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur.
5

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Alisa Coe and Bradley Marshall of Earthjustice, Tallahassee;

David G. Guest of David Guest Law, Tallahassee; and Kenneth B. 

Wright of Bledsoe, Jacobson, & Wright, Jacksonville, for 

Appellants.

Andy Bardos and James Timothy Moore, Jr., of GrayRobinson, 

P.A., Tallahassee; and George N. Meros, Jr., of Shutts & Bowen 

LLP, Tallahassee, for Appellees the Florida Legislature, the 

Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives, and the 

President of the Florida Senate.

Jeffrey Brown and Kelley Corbari of Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection, Tallahassee, for Appellees the Florida 

Department of Environmental Protection and the Secretary of 

Environmental Protection. 

Carlos Rey, General Counsel, and Kyle E. Gray, Deputy General 

Counsel, Florida Senate, Tallahassee, for Appellee the President 

of the Florida Senate.

Rhonda E. Parnell of Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

Commission, Tallahassee, for Appellees Florida Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Commission and the Executive Director of the 

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 

Steven L. Hall, Genevieve Hall, and Allan Charles of Florida 

Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Tallahassee, 

for Appellees Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer 

Services and the Commissioner of Agriculture. 

Ashley E. Davis and Bradley R. McVay, Florida Department of 

State, Tallahassee, for Appellees Florida Department of State and 
6

Secretary of State. 

Joseph W. Little, Gainesville, for Appellee Florida Defenders of the 

Environment, Inc.