Court Opinion

ID: 9940562
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-14 19:04:06.509017+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:45:01.165838
License: Public Domain

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.,
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

                                2
    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.

                                  3
     After long delays in the litigation, the trial court heard cross-
motions 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.

                                  4
                 _____________________________

    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

                               5
Secretary of State.

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

                                 6