5D06-2243 Hernando Co. v. Morana

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Florida » Florida Fifth District Court » 2008 » 5D06-2243 Hernando Co. v. Morana

State: Florida

Court: Florida Fifth District Court

Docket No: 5D06-2243

Case Date: 02/18/2008

Preview:IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2008

HERNANDO COUNTY, HERNANDO COUNTY WATER, ETC., ET AL, Petitioner, v. NICHOLAS J. MORANA AND ANN L. MORANA, Respondent. ________________________________/ Opinion filed February 22, 2008 Petition for Certiorari Review of Order from the Circuit Court for Hernando County, Daniel B. Merritt, Sr., Judge. George G. Angeliadis and Thomas S. Hogan, Jr. of The Hogan Law Firm, Brooksville, for Petitioner, Karen Nicolai. Jon A. Jouben and Garth C. Coller, of Office of County Attorney, Brooksville, for other Petitioners. Joseph M. Mason, Jr. and Carole Joy Barice of McGee & Mason, P.A., Brooksville, for Respondents. Case No. 5D06-2243

ORFINGER, J. Petitioners, Hernando County, Hernando County Water and Sewer District, Hernando County Board of Commissioners, Diane Rowden, Jeffrey Stabins, Hannah Robinson, Thomas Hogan, Sr., and Christopher Kingsley (collectively the "County") and Karen Nicolai, as Clerk of the Circuit Court, seek review of an order of the circuit court

denying their joint petition for writ of prohibition1 in which Petitioners sought to prevent the county court in the underlying class action from proceeding with the case based on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 2 Petitioners contend that because the aggregate amount of the individual claims exceeds the $15,000 monetary limit of the county court's jurisdiction, the county court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to consider the matter and should be prohibited from exercising jurisdiction over the class action suit. We agree and reverse. From 1994 until 2003, the County regulated Florida Water Services, which provided water utility services for the Spring Hill region of Hernando County. To

subsidize its regulatory obligations, the County charged Florida Water Services a franchise fee/regulatory assessment fee ("franchise fee") of four and one-half percent (4.5%) of the utility's gross receipts in Hernando County. Florida Water Services

passed that cost onto its customers in their water bills. Apparently, Florida Water Services did not list the franchise fees as a separate line item on its customers' water bills, but instead, added that cost into the equation when computing the price of water. After collection, the County deposited the franchise fees into a trust fund maintained by the Clerk. In 2003, the County condemned Florida Water's Hernando County assets (the "Spring Hill System"). Thereafter, the County booked all receipts from its water

Prohibition is an extraordinary writ by which a superior court, having appellate and supervisory jurisdiction over an inferior court or tribunal possessing judicial or quasi-judicial power, may prevent such inferior court or tribunal from exceeding jurisdiction or usurping jurisdiction over matters not within its jurisdiction. English v. McCrary, 348 So. 2d 293, 296 (Fla. 1977). We review this case by certiorari in light of the Florida Supreme Court's recent holding in Sutton v. State, No. SC06-100 (Fla. Jan. 31, 2008), that orders denying writs of prohibition in circuit court are reviewed i n this Court by certiorari. 2
2

1

customers as utility revenue. Over the life of the trust fund, approximately $4,400,000 in franchise fees was collected, of which almost $3,000,000 remains. In 2004, Respondents, Nicholas and Ann Morana, on behalf of themselves and as representatives of approximately 35,000 customers of the Spring Hill System, filed a class action suit against the County and the Clerk in the county court, seeking (1) an accounting of all of the franchise fees deposited into the trust fund, (2) a refund of the franchise fees to the ratepayers, and (3) mandatory and prohibitory injunctions. Respondents claim that Petitioners collected excessive regulatory fees and that Petitioners made illegal expenditures from the fund. Petitioners seek a refund of all amounts paid. Respondents admit in their class action complaint that no individual class member's damages exceeds $5,000 and that the average reimbursement per class member is approximately $100. Respondents filed their class action in county court. Petitioners moved to

dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, contending that the amount of franchise fees subject to the action exceeded $3,000,000. Hence, the county court lacked

jurisdiction because it was not authorized to make an aggregate class action award in excess of $15,000. Following a hearing on Petitioners' motion, the county court denied the motion, concluding that aggregation of individual claims in a class action suit is permissive, not mandatory. Petitioners then filed their joint petition for writ of prohibition in the circuit court. The circuit court denied the petition, concluding that the aggregation of claims is permissive rather than mandatory. Petitioners timely appeal. Section 34.01(1)(c), Florida Statutes, gives county courts original jurisdiction "[o]f all actions at law in which the matter in controversy does not exceed the sum of

3

$15,000, exclusive of interest, costs, and attorneys fees . . . ." The circuit court has jurisdiction of all matters when the amount in controversy exceeds $15,000. See Art. V,

Download 5D06-2243 Hernando Co. v. Morana.pdf