The District Court of Appeal of Florida recently ruled on a significant case involving the Florida PACE Funding Agency (FPFA) and Pinellas County. The court affirmed a lower court's decision that denied FPFA's motion to dismiss a lawsuit based on improper venue. This ruling is important as it determines where disputes regarding the agency's operations must be litigated, affecting how local governments can regulate programs aimed at financing energy improvements.
The case, Florida PACE Funding Agency v. Pinellas County, was filed under docket number 2D23-0985. It centers on the conflict between FPFA, a local government entity, and Pinellas County, which has enacted ordinances to regulate PACE programs. The court's decision has implications for local governance and the enforcement of county regulations over state-level funding agencies.
Background
The Florida PACE Funding Agency was established to provide financing for energy conservation and hurricane preparedness improvements on residential and commercial properties. Property owners can utilize FPFA financing to cover the entire cost of eligible projects, including labor and materials. FPFA is authorized to levy assessments on property owners to recover these costs over time.
Pinellas County, like other counties in Florida, has exercised its home rule powers to adopt consumer protection ordinances governing PACE programs. In 2017, the county adopted Ordinance 17-37, which imposes restrictions on how PACE programs can operate within its jurisdiction. This ordinance requires that PACE programs have interlocal agreements with the county and limits participation to nonresidential property owners.
In 2019, FPFA entered into an interlocal agreement with Pinellas County, acknowledging the county's regulatory authority. However, after a Leon County circuit court validated a series of FPFA bonds in late 2022, FPFA asserted that it could operate independently of county regulations. This led to FPFA terminating its interlocal agreement with Pinellas County in January 2023.
The Ruling
The court ruled on March 27, 2024, affirming the trial court's denial of FPFA's motion to dismiss the lawsuit based on improper venue. The court found that while the county's claims did not trigger the 'sword-wielder' exception to the home venue privilege, the forum selection clause in the interlocal agreement required that the dispute be litigated in Pinellas County.
The court stated, "The forum selection clause is a structural provision that addresses the procedural requirements for dispute resolution."
This ruling was made by Judge Rothstein-Youakim, with Chief Judge Sleet concurring and Judge Atkinson concurring in result only. The court emphasized that the forum selection clause was mandatory, stating that the parties had agreed that any legal actions involving the county and FPFA would occur in Pinellas County.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for the operations of FPFA and local governance in Florida. By affirming the trial court's decision, the court reinforced the authority of local governments to regulate PACE programs within their jurisdictions. This ensures that FPFA must comply with local ordinances, even after asserting independent authority following the bond validation judgment.
The decision also clarifies the application of the 'sword-wielder' doctrine, which allows for exceptions to the home venue privilege in cases where a governmental entity is accused of infringing upon constitutional rights. The court determined that the county did not sufficiently demonstrate that its claims fell under this exception, thus maintaining the integrity of the home venue privilege.
What's Next
FPFA may consider appealing the court's ruling, although details on whether an appeal will be pursued were not available in the court filing. The outcome of this case may influence future disputes between local governments and state-level funding agencies regarding regulatory authority and venue selection.