Metro. Dade County v. Chase Fed. Housing

Summary

The Florida Supreme Court held that the immunity provisions of Florida's Dry Cleaning Contamination Cleanup Act apply retroactively to eligible property owners and dry-cleaning facility operators, including barring local-government claims for rehabilitation costs incurred before the statute's enactment. The court concluded that the statute clearly expressed retroactive legislative intent and that applying the immunity against Metropolitan Dade County was constitutionally permissible because the County, a political subdivision, had no vested right to enforce an ordinance conflicting with superior state law.

Holdings

1. Subsection 376.3078(3) clearly expresses legislative intent to apply conditionally and retroactively to eligible entities, including immunity from actions seeking recovery of rehabilitation costs expended before enactment of the Act.
2. Subsection 376.3078(9) expressly applies to voluntary cleanup activities commenced before or after October 1, 1995, and therefore retroactively immunizes qualifying real-property owners from liability for rehabilitation costs.
3. Applying the immunity provisions to eliminate Metropolitan Dade County's claim for recovery of rehabilitation costs was constitutionally permissible because the County, as a political subdivision, had no vested constitutional right to enforce an ordinance that conflicted with controlling state law.
4. Once defendants were determined eligible under subsection 376.3078(3), the County was barred from pursuing claims to recover rehabilitation costs previously expended and from seeking prospective injunctive relief to compel rehabilitation.

Questions Presented

1. Whether subsections 376.3078(3) and 376.3078(9), Florida Statutes (1995), apply retroactively to immunize eligible entities from governmental actions seeking recovery of rehabilitation costs expended before enactment of the provisions.
2. Whether retroactive application of the immunity provisions is constitutionally permissible when it eliminates a county government's claim under a local pollution ordinance.
3. Whether the statutory immunity bars the County's claims for costs already expended and its request for prospective injunctive relief after defendants became eligible.

Disposition

approved