Opinion
No. YY-223.
May 26, 1981. Rehearing Denied June 24, 1981.
Appeal from the Circuit Court, Madison County, Declan O'Grady, J.
H. Reynolds Sampson and Margaret-Ray Kemper, Tallahassee, for appellant.
Cary A. Hardee, of Davis, Browning Hardee, Madison, for appellee.
This case tests the proper construction of our mandate and opinion in Dept. of Transportation v. Burnette, 384 So.2d 916 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). In this interlocutory appeal, the Department seeks relief from a circuit court order of contempt entered after remand, upon a finding that the Department had willfully failed to comply with final judgment as modified by our decision. Because we find the Department did not violate our decision and mandate, properly construed, we vacate the contempt order.
This dispute came before us previously after the Madison County circuit court enjoined the Department within 90 days to stop use of a water drainage system subjecting Burnette's land to periodic flooding or to condemn the property as "permanently taken" through eminent domain. In reviewing this injunction on appeal, this court specifically reversed the finding that the property, acquired by Burnette long after the offending drainage pattern had been established, had been "taken" by the State so as to require purchase in eminent domain. We did conclude, however, that the State was properly enjoined to end the casting of waters onto the Burnette property.
Accordingly, we affirm the portion of the circuit court judgment enjoining "the Department's continued use of the . . . drainage system in such a way to burden this land." 384 So.2d at 922. However, our opinion went further. First, we indicated our concern that the Department consider the interests of other area landowners, noting that if restoration of the old drainage pattern would flood a junior college since built, the Department might need to consider the alternative of eminent domain proceedings to acquire "some land or easements," not necessarily Burnette's for the revised drainage pattern. Secondly, we emphasized that "the manner and method" of relieving the Burnette flooding, through means including eminent domain if necessary, was "for the Department to determine in the exercise of its lawful powers." 384 So.2d at 923.
Our mandate commanding the circuit court to conduct further proceedings in accordance with this prior opinion went down on July 14, 1980. Apparently reading our opinion as an endorsement of the 90-day compliance period in his original order, the circuit judge, 99 days after issuance of the mandate, held the Department in civil contempt, on Burnette's motion, and set compensatory fines of $1,000 a day. Finding the Department in "willful" violation of the judgment, the judge ordered fines to continue until the Department corrects
the present diversion of surface water onto the land of Plaintiff . . . or in the sole discretion of [the] DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION [acquires] the fee simple title to Plaintiff's said lands, either by voluntary purchase, or by entry of an appropriate Order of Taking in a condemnation proceeding vesting title to Plaintiff's said lands in the . . . [Department], as delineated as an alternative remedy to it by said District Court of Appeal.
Faced with daily accumulation of fines potentially payable from the public treasury should this appeal fail, the Department then hastily instituted condemnation proceedings for Burnette's entire 100-acre tract in hopes of purging the contempt as soon as possible. Those proceedings since came to a halt when the circuit court dismissed the petition for condemnation for want of an appropriate Department resolution of necessity.
In considering the circuit court's contempt order, we note primarily that we disagree with the characterization of the Department's action as "willful." We are aware that, despite language to the contrary in a few cases, willfulness generally is not required to support a finding of civil contempt. McComb v. Jacksonville Paper Co., 336 U.S. 187, 191, 69 S.Ct. 497, 499, 93 L.Ed. 599, 604 (1948). However, the circuit judge here nonetheless predicated his contempt order on the conclusion that the Department's failure to end the drainage problem was willful. We find this view unsupported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Testimony before the circuit judge in October 1980 from a veteran Department official with 45 years' experience in road operations indicated that the Department had surveyed five alternative solutions to the drainage problem since our July mandate; at the time this testimony was given, the Department also was moving to implement the alternative offering engineering, environmental and cost advantages over the others. While the Department, like other fabled slow-moving bureaucracies, conceivably may have conducted and completed this survey more promptly, we see no willful failure to act.
More basically, however, we must correct the circuit court's impression that our opinion and mandate held the Department to a 90-day deadline after July 14 for completed correction of a drainage problem created by a series of events, not all the responsibility of the Department, more than a decade earlier. Such a requirement, under the realities of this case, would commit the Department to the very course our prior decision emphasized it was not required to take. This is so because the only solution the Department conceivably might have implemented within 90 days — and even then with a maximum of cooperation from all parties — was condemnation of Burnette's entire 100-acre tract in eminent domain proceedings.
Our prior decision explicitly found no taking of the 100-acre tract, so the expenditure of public dollars to purchase Burnette's entire property would be highly problematic, and was recognized by the Department as problematic. The evidence indicates that only 50 acres of the tract is low lying, and it is not altogether clear how much of that land, and which parts of it, would be necessary to accommodate the excess drainage. And even if the Department could have identified and condemned an appropriate portion of the land within 90 days, our decision clearly states that the choice of means to correct the situation was committed to the Department's expertise. We did not, as the circuit judge seems to have put it in his contempt order, require an eminent domain purchase of the entire tract as an "alternative remedy" to stopping the flooding.
Using the expertise we asked it to employ, the Department concluded that the best alternative called for continuing a storm sewer line west into an existing water storage basin, not on Burnette's land, which would be enlarged by excavation to 10 or 11 acres. This alternative, the Department's road operations veteran told the circuit court, would take eight months to implement under an optimistic schedule for condemnation or purchase of the storage basin property, letting of bids and accelerated construction. Normally, he added, such a project takes five years to complete. And even under the accelerated eight-month schedule, the Department faced uncertainties due to the need to use an existing dry well for the revised drainage project, a use requiring a permit from another State agency over which the Department has no control. Moreover, the possibility of intervention by third parties in any permitting process further complicates any fixed schedule of work. In light of a more realistic timetable for achievement of our directive, our opinion should not have been read as insisting on a 90-day deadline.
We, or course, have authority to take corrective action where we find the trial court has departed from the directions of our mandate and opinion. E.g., Robinson v. Gale, 380 So.2d 513 (Fla.3d DCA 1980); Modine Manufacturing Co. v. ABC Radiator, Inc., 367 So.2d 232 (Fla.3d DCA 1979). This authority might be contrasted to more limited power to correct mandates for errors of law to prevent miscarriage of justice. Cf. Westberry v. Copeland Sausage Co., 397 So.2d 1018 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). We quite understand that our prior opinion may have perplexed the trial court, given the decision's emphasis on allowing the Department to determine appropriate methods of correcting the drainage problems and its concurrent oversight in failing to excise, more explicitly, the 90-day time period from the original judgment. Where the language of an opinion is susceptible to various inferences or even contains self-contradictions on its face, however, a district court may properly indicate what was intended by its prior decision. E.g., Hurt v. Virginia Heights Ass'n, 244 So.2d 483 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971); Klein v. Newburger, Loeb Co., 153 So.2d 344 (Fla.3d DCA 1963). At an appropriate time, an appellate court in fact has an obligation to trial courts to clarify its opinions. Maeder v. Grayson, 227 So.2d 308 (Fla.3d DCA 1969). See also Castlewood International Corp. v. Wynne, 305 So.2d 773 (Fla. 1974).
Accordingly, we emphasize that our prior decision requires the Department, within a reasonable period of time consistent with required planning, land acquisition, permitting and construction, to end this drainage flow burdening Burnette's land. In doing so, the Department must necessarily consider whether by moving the drainage path off Burnette's land under any solution it will tortiously cast waters again on the land of some other; therefore, we reject appellee's argument that the Department should solve Burnette's problem individually by returning the drainage path to the north and subjecting the junior college to possible flooding.
We underscore this last point by emphasizing again that Burnette is not the only one with a legitimate interest in what happens to the existing drainage path, and that the Department is not the sole creator of this problem. The junior college and a housing development behind it, a nearby shopping center and indeed the City of Madison are, of course, legitimately concerned about alterations in a drainage pattern that has existed since 1969. This is a community problem in which Burnette's specific desire to develop his land is a significant factor but not the only factor. When Burnette assembled this tract through purchases in 1972 and 1977 with a townhouse development in mind, Burnette knew full well, or should have known, of the problem of which he now complains so bitterly. The Department must now rectify the problem surely; but Burnette, having been forewarned, must not now be permitted to insist on frantic governmental action, spurred by fines against the public treasury, aiding Burnette at the expense of others.
We stress also that the Department must establish and comply with a reasonable but expeditious schedule and must aggressively pursue expedited procedures where available. Foot-dragging interrupted by periodic spurts of activity in anticipation of review by this court or any other should not be tolerated. The trial court certainly retains its full authority to exercise its contempt powers, and it may profitably use those powers, if necessary, to compel specific officials within the Department to act, to report on progress, to meet schedules and so forth. The circuit court must use its good judgment in determining what is reasonable, without requiring the Department to perform the impossible or to implement a hastily conceived solution to satisfy an arbitrary deadline. Ten days after its receipt of this decision, and without regard for the normal time for rehearing, the Department will report to the circuit court, in writing and under oath of the Department head, what it has accomplished within the last 90 days toward alleviating the problem, when that action was taken, and what further action the Department plans within the next 30 days.
Since we find the contempt order based on an erroneous interpretation of our prior decision, the imposition of compensatory fines is also invalid. The contempt order entered by the circuit court is VACATED.
ERVIN, J., concurs.
BOOTH, J., dissents, with opinion.
The trial court correctly ruled that the Department of Transportation (DOT) was guilty of civil contempt in failing to comply with this court's order that it cease flooding appellee's property. Civil contempt consists of the failure to perform an act ordered by a court, which is within the power of the party to perform, to the injury of another party for whose benefit the act is required. The United States Supreme Court, in McComb v. Jacksonville Paper Company, held that the purposes of civil contempt are two-fold: to coerce the derelict party into compliance with court orders, and to compensate the prevailing party for losses or damages caused by the other's noncompliance.
17 C.J.S. Contempt § 6, and cases cited therein.
336 U.S. 187, 191, 69 S.Ct. 497, 499, 93 L.Ed. 599 (1949). See also Jim Walter Resources v. Intern. Union, Inc., 609 F.2d 165, 169 (5th Cir. 1980).
The DOT does not deny that it has the present ability to comply either by restoring the original natural drainage or by condemning property needed as a drainage basin with the present system in operation. The DOT made a voluntary decision not to adopt either of these available solutions.
Restoration of natural drainage by unplugging culverts would allow the excess waters to drain into a series of wet-weather or retention ponds existing in the vicinity of the junior college, as testified by Jay Brown, DOT's witness at the contempt hearing:
[T]he normal outlet has been all the time, been to the series of, of wet-weather ponds or retention ponds located in the general vicinity of what is now the junior college.
No explanation for the DOT's refusal to restore this natural drainage appears.
The excuse given for noncompliance with the order of this court is that the DOT seeks a solution for all the drainage problems in the entire area, a solution not limited to appellee's property. All indications are that there will be numerous, time-consuming obstacles to overcome during the DOT's search for this mythical perfect solution. Meanwhile, the private landowner must continue to bear the loss of use of his property, for it continues to serve as the terminus for the storm sewer system of the City of Madison.
I do not agree with the majority that clarification of our prior decision is needed. There has been no misinterpretation by the trial court. Nor is further time required for the DOT to comply. This court has ruled that the DOT caused flooding by plugging the culverts which previously allowed the waters to follow their natural drainage path away from appellee's land and by the addition of the runoff from 103 acres of improved land in the City of Madison, which the DOT caused to be carried through a 54-inch culvert and dumped onto appellee's land. By opinion dated June 11, 1980, this court ordered the DOT to cease flooding appellee's land. Department of Transportation v. Burnette, 384 So.2d 916 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). More than 90 days after the issuance of this court's mandate, the trial court held a hearing on appellee's motion for contempt and determined, on the record before him, that only by the imposition of a daily fine could the Department be persuaded to take steps to cease the flooding. The majority now takes from the trial court the only available method to enforce this court's order and allows the Department to continue trespassing until such time as it sees fit to do otherwise. No date is set by which the flooding must cease and no compensation provided for the landowner, who is again denied deserved relief.
In Aspira of New York v. Board of Education of City of New York, 423 F. Supp. 647, 654 (S.D.N.Y. 1976), the federal court, in adjudging city officials guilty of contempt, made a ruling which could well have been made here:
The federal courts have not abdicated their responsibility to require that governmental entities comply with court orders protecting the rights of individuals: Hadnott v. Amos, 325 F. Supp. 777 (M.D.Ala. 1971), Secretary of State found guilty of contempt and fined $5,452; Palmigiano v. Garvahy, 448 F. Supp. 659, 672 (D.R. 1.1978), civil contempt and $1,000 fine imposed for each day of noncompliance by officials, the court holding:
The Court concludes that a fine is necessary because the Court's deference to the duly-appointed state officials has not persuaded the Department of Corrections that the August 10 order must be complied with, with all the speed that the Department's resources permit . . .;
Powell v. Ward, 487 F. Supp. 917 (S.D.N.Y. 1980), civil contempt $5,000 fine on entry of order and $1,000 thereafter for each day of noncompliance; Hamilton v. Love, 358 F. Supp. 338 (E.D.Ark. 1973), $500 fine for civil contempt of county officials.
[D]efendants have fallen far short of requisite diligence. . . . They have allowed deadlines to pass without advance announcements or volunteered explanations, awaiting complaint by the plaintiffs before even treating with the court concerning the delinquencies. . . . They have displayed an evident sense of nonurgency bordering on indifference contrasting vividly with the spurt of activity on the heels of plaintiffs' motion for a finding of contempt.
Without enforcement, there is no remedy, judgments are "advisory," and judicial power a "mockery," as held by the Florida Supreme Court in Seaboard Airline Railroad v. Tampa Southern Railroad Company, 134 So. 529, 533 (Fla. 1931):
Without it [contempt power], such courts are mere boards of arbitration, whose judgments and decrees are only advisory.
If a party can make himself a judge of the validity of orders which have been issued for the protection of property rights, and by his own act of disobedience can set them aside, then are the courts impotent, and what the Constitution of the state ordains as the judicial power becomes a mere mockery.
I dissent.