Did you know that in 2002, the voters of Florida adopted a "pregnant pig" amendment to the state's constitution? Well, neither did we. The amendment, effective in 2008, makes it unlawful for "any person to confine a pig during pregnancy in an enclosure, or to tether a pig during pregnancy, on a firm in such a way that she is prevented from turning around freely."
Farmer Basford's pig farm used such "gestation crates," and he was forced by the amendment to go out of business. He tried other things like peanut farming, but those didn't work, so in 2010, he filed an inverse condemnation claim and a claim under Florida's Bert Harris Act, arguing that the pig amendment deprived him of all economically viable use of his far. The trial court dismissed the Bert Harris Act claim, and after a trial, held that he was entitled to $505,000 in compensation for a Penn Central taking.
In State of Florida v. Basford, No. 1D12-4106 (July 24, 2013), the Court of Appeal affirmed. The court rejected the State's argument that the claim was filed too late and was barred by the four-year statute of limitations. Even though the voters adopted the pig amendment in 2002, it was not effective until 2008, and Basford filed his claim in 2010.
The more interesting part of the opinion starts on page 7, the court's review of the trial court's Penn Central analysis. Both courts correctly recognized that analysis under Penn Central is not a matter of categorical rules, but rather is fact-intensive and must "take into consideration everything." Slip op. at 8. The court of appeal deferred to the trial court's factual determinations:
Although the Amendment only restricted the use of gestation crates, a fact which the trial court acknowledged, the court found that the other improvements were functionally integrated with the crates. The State does not challenge this finding on appeal either. As such, we are bound by the trial court’s factual findings as to the value, or lack thereof, of Appellee’s improvements as a result of the Amendment and, therefore, affirm the Final Judgment.
Slip op. at 9-10.
One judge dissented, asserting that the breeding barn rendered illegal by the pig amendment was only one small part of Basford's farm, which in turn was only a small part of his property, and that the loss of the barn was not enough to support a takings claim. He asserted that the court must take into account plaintiff's entire property, and not just the barn.
More here (along with the inevitable bad pun headline) from a Florida paper.
State of Florida v. Basford, No. 1D12-4106 (Fla. App. July 24, 2013)
