Opinion ID: 197425
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the bankruptcy court wrongly

Text: CONCLUDED CUMBERLAND WAS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH PLIRP DURING THE DISPUTED PERIOD. As part of this argument Cumberland maintains that it was in substantial compliance with PLIRP. It also asserts that its failure to file an affidavit of financial responsibility should be deemed waived. There can be no doubt that Florida law gives the FDEP the authority to establish rules and regulate the -5- 5 operations of USTs in Florida. Fla. Stat. ch. 376.303 (1995). Under chapter 403.141 and .161 of the Florida Statutes, failure to comply with any rule, regulation, order, or permit issued by the FDEP is a violation of the law. Cumberland does not deny that it failed to file the requisite financial responsibility information when due. It argues that on February 1, 1992, which was pre-bankruptcy, the law making a UST owner eligible for enrollment in PLIRP required only substantial compliance. Cumberland asserts that it was in substantial compliance. We agree with the district court that enrollment in the PLIRP during the disputed period is not an issue. We note, as did the district court, that the bankruptcy court made no findings as to Cumberland's eligibility under PLIRP. The FDEP brought its claim for penalties under the statutory and regulatory provisions of Florida law. The PLIRP is not implicated. Violation of the PLIRP results only in exclusion from the insurance program, not in regulatory penalties. The bankruptcy court, therefore, was not the proper forum to determine Cumberland's PLIRP status. We find no basis for holding that Cumberland's failure to file an affidavit of financial responsibility should be deemed waived. Cumberland's argument seems to be that the gravamen of the financial responsibility test is that the owner or operator of a UST facility have a net worth -6- 6 of $10 million; that Cumberland at all times had a net worth of at least $10.2 million and that, therefore, the filing of the financial reports should be deemed waived. We disagree. The gravamen of the offense is not the net worth of the UST owner, but the timely filing by such owner of the required financial reports. Cumberland failed to do so despite its knowledge of the legal requirements. And such failure cannot be excused or condoned on the basis of an affidavit filed by a corporate official (Arthur C.G.K. Koumantzelis) on February 15, 1994, which itself fails to meet the reporting requirements.