Home > News & Media > Citrus tree-cutting lawsuit finally in court

Citrus tree-cutting lawsuit finally in court

In the first of five class-action lawsuits to go to trial, more than 60,000 Broward County homeowners on Monday will wage a high-stakes showdown against the state of Florida for destroying their orange, lemon, grapefruit and other citrus trees in its aggressive quest to eradicate citrus canker.

The outcome of the Broward trial, though not binding in other counties, could foretell what may happen in the four other cases that involve tens of thousands of homeowners and 587,000 trees statewide. A large verdict for homeowners statewide could have a potential multimillion dollar impact on the state’s budget.

At issue is the value in Broward’s case: just over 133,000 trees were cut down by the state since January 2000.

On Monday, lawyers will begin questioning a pre-screened pool of 90 to 100 potential jurors. Jury selection could be challenging, since many residents or their relatives or neighbors in South Florida, have seen the chain-saw’s wrath.

The state’s tree cutters were ordered to remove all trees infected with canker, and non-infected ones within 1,900 feet of those that were infected.

Given that so many people have been affected by the eradication program and given the highly public controversy, ‘’it may prove very difficult to select a jury,’’ but not impossible, said Tony Alfieri, director of the University of Miami Law School’s Center for Ethics and Public Service.

Both sides will face obstacles in finding jurors, said Miami-based litigation consultant Sanford H. Marks, president and founder of Trial Tech Inc. Even though potential jurors may not have had trees destroyed themselves, many will likely know someone who did, Marks said.

People also remember what they read, saw or heard in the media. During the eradication program, there was considerable media coverage.

‘’There was a lot of press at one time that these canker inspectors were just haphazardly marking trees to be destroyed in neighborhoods,’’ Marks said.

Finally, there are people who just, ‘don’t like `the state’ in essence telling them what to do,’’ Marks said.

Plaintiffs have an easier job, but a challenge as well, Marks said.

``To me the biggest hurdle they are going to have is in this depressed economy that we are in finding jurors who would be willing to award large amounts of money. Doesn’t it always come down to that? Money?’‘

‘’I think that the day of judgment has finally arrived for the Department of Agriculture and Commissioner (Charles) Bronson,’’ said Bobby Gilbert, lead Miami-based attorney for the plaintiffs in Broward and four other counties where lawsuits have been filed, Orange, Palm Beach, Miami-Dade and Lee counties.
Among his plaintiffs: Tim Farley, who eight years ago watched in agony as crews ripped six fruit trees from his yard in Oakland Park.

The Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services destroyed a honeybell, a honey tangelo, a ruby red grapefruit, a white grapefruit, a lemon and a Valencia orange tree.

The eradication program was part of an effort to stop the spread of canker, particularly to keep it from the commercial groves of Central and East Central Florida. But it failed, and after a decade and nearly $1 billion spent, the state and federal government abandoned the program.

Farley said he felt ‘’violated,’’ and the state’s payment of $385 in compensation was not ``just and fair.’‘
Gilbert’s matrix for determining replacement value is driven largely by the size of his trees. The taller the tree, the greater its replacement costs.

Gilbert will argue that trees in the 12-foot range — one of the largest groups within the 133,700 trees — have a replacement value of $705 to $1,110.

Citrus canker is harmless to humans but it blemishes fruit, weakens the tree and causes loss of production.

It can eventually be fatal to the tree, said Wes Parsons, the Department of Agriculture’s attorney.

But this case is about trees that showed no signs of the disease. They were, however, in an ‘’exposed’’ zone within 1,900 feet of a diseased tree.

The state argues that those trees would have become diseased and declined as many other trees in Broward have. Thus the trees that were removed from the 1,900-foot zone had minimal value.

Homeowners contend the trees had considerable value, either from the fruit they bore or the shade they provided.

Parsons said the value of a tree is the roughly $20 cost of a sapling tree, the cost of caring for it, which is mainly fertilizing it, and interest on the cost of the tree for 8.5 years. Parsons said that total would be less than $55 a tree in most cases.