Case Name: HILL TOP DEVELOPERS, Appellant, v. HOLIDAY PINES SERVICE CORPORATION, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1985-10-11
Citations: 478 So. 2d 368
Docket Number: No. 84-1617
Parties: HILL TOP DEVELOPERS, Appellant, v. HOLIDAY PINES SERVICE CORPORATION, Appellee.
Judges: RYDER, C.J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 478
Pages: 368–374

Head Matter:
HILL TOP DEVELOPERS, Appellant, v. HOLIDAY PINES SERVICE CORPORATION, Appellee.
No. 84-1617.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Oct. 11, 1985.
Rehearing Denied Nov. 20, 1985.
Charles P. Pillans, III, and Andrew J. McClurg of Bedell, Dittmar, DeVault, Pil-lans & Gentry, P.A., Jacksonville, for appellant.
Charles W. Pittman of MacFarlane, Ferguson, Allison & Kelly, Tampa, for appel-lee.
William S. Bilenky, General Counsel, and Wayne L. Schiefelbein, Associate General Counsel, of Florida Public Service Commission, Tallahassee, amicus curiae.

Opinion:
FRANK, Judge.
The appellant, Hill Top Developers (HTD), contests a final judgment awarded to Holiday Pines Service Corporation (HPSC) in the amount of $52,715.88. The claimed indebtedness arose from HPSC's plant facility expansion that was required as a result of furnishing water and sewer service to 150 condominium units constructed by HTD.
The factual setting giving rise to the litigation and the events before the trial court are summarized as follows: HPSC initially billed and received from HTD $105,000.00. That charge was consistent with the Public Service Commission's (PSC) approved tariff at a rate of $300.00 per unit for water service availability and $400.00 per unit for sewer service availability. Subsequently, HPSC sought an additional $77,715.88 from HTD as its "fair share" of the cost of plant facility expansion. HTD paid $25,000.00 as a portion of the facility expansion charge but refused to pay the balance, i.e. the $52,715.88 represented by the judgment. The trial court dismissed HTD's counterclaim for $25,000.00 and foreclosed it from pursuing a defense based upon the absence of PSC approval of the charges sought by HPSC. Following the entry of the judgment, HTD petitioned the PSC for the refund of the $25,000.00 paid to HPSC and for exoneration from payments in excess of those authorized by it. HPSC reacted by commencing an action in the Leon County Circuit Court seeking to enjoin the PSC from acting upon HTD's petition, asserting that the judgment presently disputed forecloses the PSC from considering HTD's petition. The fact and outcome of the Leon County litigation play no part in our disposition of the matter before us.
The core issue in this case is whether the trial court was endowed with subject matter jurisdiction to enforce a charge imposed by a regulated utility without such charge receiving the prior approval of the PSC. The appellant, and the PSC appearing before us as an amicus, urge the view that the "Water and Sewer System Regulatory Law," Chapter 367, Florida Statutes, is preemptive and thus commits to the PSC the primary and exclusive jurisdiction and power to fix the charge that in this instance was reduced to a judgment. The lack of subject matter jurisdiction may properly be raised for the first time at the appellate stage. Rodriquez v. State, 441 So.2d 1129, 1135 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). We conclude that the lower court was without subject matter jurisdiction to award HPSC a judgment.
This matter should have been determined by the trial court through application of the judge-made "primary jurisdiction" doctrine, recognized in Florida, State ex rel. Shevin v. Tampa Electric Company, 291 So.2d 45, 46 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974), which is designed and intended to achieve a "proper relationship between the courts and administrative agencies charged with particular regulatory duties." United States v. Western P.R. Co., 352 U.S. 59, 63, 77 S.Ct. 161, 1 L.Ed.2d 126 (1956). In Mercury Motor Express, Inc. v. Brinke, 475 F.2d 1086 (5th Cir.1973), the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit explicated the doctrine in terms distinctly pertinent to this matter when it was before the trial court:
. primary judisdiction comes into play when a court and an administrative agency have concurrent jurisdiction over the same matter, and no statutory provision coordinates the work of the court and of the agency. The doctrine operates, when applicable, to postpone judicial consideration of a case to administrative determination of important questions involved by an agency with special competence in the area. It does not defeat the court's jurisdiction over the case, but coordinates the work of the court and the agency by permitting the agency to rule first and giving the court the benefit of the agency's views . 475 F.2d at 1091-1092.
In the circumstance where the primary jurisdiction doctrine is applicable, the judiciary, although possessing subject matter jurisdiction to pass upon the asserted claim, stays its hand and defers to the administrative agency in order to maintain uniformity at that level or to bring specialized expertise to bear upon the disputed issues. Cf. Northeast Airlines, Inc. v. Weiss, 113 So.2d 884 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959). Thus, here, where it cannot be questioned that the trial court was invested with subject matter jurisdiction to entertain the action cast in terms of a contractual debt owed by HTD to HPSC, application of the primary jurisdiction principle simply would have required the trial court to abate the proceeding until such time as an order was issued by the PSC, pursuant to its powers conferred by section 367.101, Florida Statutes, determining the justness and reasonableness of the facility expansion charge. The proceeding in the lower court, of course, would have been delayed pending the PSC's action and judicial review, if sought, of its order. Such delay, however, would have preserved the respective jurisdictions of the PSC and the trial court.
As logical as application of the primary jurisdiction doctrine to the matter at hand would have been, it was not followed. The trial court's entry of a judgment in favor of HPSC thus requires us to consider still another principle commonly known as the "preemption doctrine." That doctrine, also recognized in Florida, Maxwell v. School Board of Broward County, 330 So.2d 177 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976), insures that a legislatively intended allocation of jurisdiction between administrative agencies and the judiciary is maintained without the disruption which would flow from judicial incursion into the province of the agency. See Laborers International Union of North America, Local 517 v. The Greater Orlando Aviation Authority, 385 So.2d 716 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). We conclude upon the present record that the power and authority of the PSC are preemptive. It is plain beyond any doubt that in formulating Chapter 367, the Legislature desired exclusive jurisdiction to rest with the PSC to regulate utilities such as the HPSC and to fix charges for service availability. § 367.011(2) and 367.101, Fla.Stat.; see Richter v. Florida Power Cory., 366 So.2d 798 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). The trial court, by asserting its jurisdiction and awarding HPSC a judgment, literally cast itself in the role of the PSC. It is by honoring the jurisdictional exclusivity of the PSC that the very collision which has occurred here between an administrative agency and the judiciary would have been avoided. Stated differently, in entering a judgment in favor of HPSC, the trial court placed its imprimatur upon the service availability charge assessed against HTD and denied to the PSC its statutorily delegated responsibility to determine the validity of that charge.
In a matter of this sort, we believe it is appropriate to signal to the attention of the bench and bar that a more demanding pleading standard might have forestalled the trial court's encroachment upon the exclusive jurisdiction of the PSC. The HPSC should have been required to plead that its plant facility expansion charge had been approved by the PSC. The failure to plead that fact imposed an infirmity upon the debt claim which ousted the trial court of subject matter jurisdiction to grant HPSC a judgment.
We, with deference to Judge Ott's views, find the dissent unpersuasive. To treat this matter as one in which HPSC is simply seeking to recover a debt owing under a contract is to beg the core question. Admittedly HPSC sought to recover money arising from the expansion of plant facilities undertaken to provide HTD with service, but that charge is expressly one within the regulatory authority of the PSC. See Florida Waterworks Ass'n v. Florida Public Service Commission, 473 So.2d 237 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) ("service availability charge" and "contribution-in-aid-of construction" are synonymous and thus within the PSC's authority to regulate). The essential defect we find in the dissent emerges from contrasting the authorities relied upon in Judge Ott's analysis with the exclusive statutory authority of the PSC to regulate in the first instance the charge which became the debt. Thus, Deltona Corp. v. Mayo, 342 So.2d 510 (Fla.1977) (no statutory authority to redress fraudulent misrepresentations expressed to purchasers of property), Southern Bell Teleyhone and Telegrayh Co. v. Mobile American Corp., Inc., 291 So.2d 199 (Fla.1974) (no authority to remedy negligence claim), Cohee v. Crestridge Utilities Corp., 324 So.2d 155 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975) (rate increase occurred prior to PSC's authority to regulate), and Winter Syrings Develoyment Corp. v. Florida Power Corp., 402 So.2d 1225 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981) (at the time of the contractual undertaking, there was no charge requiring PSC approval), are in-apposite in the context of the statutory and factual elements composing the present proceeding. Finally, our disposition of this matter in no measure offends Article I, Section 21 of the Florida Constitution. Access to the judiciary is not foreclosed by our decision; resort to the judiciary is available following utilization of the administrative process. § 350.128(1), Fla.Stat.; Scholastic Systems, Inc. v. LeLoup, 307 So.2d 166 (Fla.1974). Once a charge of this kind becomes finally determined in accordance with the statutory scheme, a juridically cognizable debt would exist if the charge were not satisfied.
Accordingly, we reverse the trial court, vacate the judgment and direct that the amended complaint be dismissed.
RYDER, C.J., concurs.
OTT, J., dissents with opinion.