217 So. 3d 1100
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2017Background
- The Hills (Jeffrey and Linda Hill) own a farm with a pond and dam; the Suwannee River Water Management District (the District) previously obtained a 2007 injunction requiring the dam be drained and repaired under certified engineering and maintenance plans.
- The injunction prohibited impounding water to full capacity until the District approved the required certification and plan; El Rancho No Tengo, the Hills’ company, appealed and the injunction was affirmed by this court in 2009.
- The Hills and their company did not comply with the injunction; the District repeatedly inspected, found dangerously high water levels, and sought compliance to drain the pond; the circuit court issued multiple contempt orders authorizing the District to drain the impoundment and remove portions of the dam to allow water to flow.
- The Hills filed an independent takings claim in 2011, alleging the District’s drainage actions flooded about 60 acres of their farm since 2008 and deprived them of beneficial use, seeking injunctive relief and at least $1,000,000 in damages.
- The circuit court granted final summary judgment to the District, reasoning the District had absolute quasi-judicial immunity for its actions because they were taken under court orders; the Hills appealed.
- The appellate court reviewed de novo and reversed, holding the District’s physical drainage/flooding actions were not judicial acts that qualify for quasi-judicial immunity, and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the District is entitled to absolute quasi-judicial immunity for draining the pond and related physical actions | Hills: the District’s actions were executed under court orders and thus immune from suit | District: its actions were taken pursuant to judicial authority and are functionally judicial, entitling it to immunity | Reversed: the District’s physical acts (draining/flooding) are not judicial acts functionally comparable to judges’ rulings and therefore not entitled to quasi-judicial immunity |
| Whether judicial or quasi-judicial status would bar a takings claim regardless of actor | Hills: takings claim valid because physical invasion and denial of use occurred | District (implicit): if action is judicial/quasi-judicial, immunity would bar suit | Court noted that even true judicial acts may not shield against takings claims in all circumstances and cited Stop the Beach to show actor’s identity is irrelevant to takings analysis |
Key Cases Cited
- El Rancho No Tengo, Inc. v. Suwannee River Water Mgmt. Dist., 6 So.3d 56 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (affirming the injunction requiring dam certification and limiting impoundment)
- Fuller v. Truncale, 50 So.3d 25 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (describing the two-prong test for judicial/quasi-judicial immunity)
- Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478 (U.S. 1978) (discussing absolute judicial immunity and functional analysis for non-judicial officials)
- Zoba v. City of Coral Springs, 189 So.3d 888 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (applying a functional test for absolute quasi-judicial immunity for nonjudicial officials)
- Montejo v. Martin Mem'l Med. Ctr., 935 So.2d 1266 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (rejecting quasi-judicial immunity where action was not co-extensive with judicial functions)
- Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Fla. Dept. of Envtl. Prot., 560 U.S. 702 (U.S. 2010) (plurality) (noting the Takings Clause can apply regardless of which branch or actor effects a property restriction)