text:
    DEBARY REAL ESTATE HOLDINGS, LLC, and Steven Costa, Appellants, v. STATE of Florida, DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION OF PARIMUTUEL WAGERING, West Volusia Racing, Inc. f/k/a Volusia Jai-Alai, Inc., and License Acquisitions, LLC, Appellees.
    No. 1D12-1654.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 10, 2013.

      David S. Romanik of David S. Romanik, P.A., Oxford, for Appellants.
    Barry Richard of Greenberg Traurig, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellee License Acquisition, LLC; J. Layne Smith, General Counsel, and Garnett W. Chisenhall, Chief Appellate Counsel of Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Tallahassee, for Appellee, State of Florida, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering; and J. Riley Davis of Akerman Senterfitt, Tallahassee, for Appellee West Volusia Racing, Inc.
   ON MOTIONS FOR REHEARING AND CLARIFICATION

PER CURIAM.

Appellants and Appellee Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, have filed motions for clarification of our January 24, 2013, opinion. Appellee West Volusia Racing, Inc., has filed a motion for rehearing. We deny the motion for rehearing. In consideration of the motions for clarification, we withdraw our previous opinion and substitute the following in its place. We grant clarification to the extent reflected in this corrected opinion.

This appeal arises from a final order entered after a summary judgment declaring chapter 2009-170, section 6, Laws of Florida, (“the Act”) a valid general law. In pertinent part, the Act allows the holder of a pari-mutuel permit to change the class of the permit from jai-alai to greyhound if the permit or permitholder meets three enumerated criteria. In the proceedings below, Debary Real Estate Holdings, LLC, and Steven Costa, Appellants, sought a declaratory judgment that the Act is a special law enacted in violation of the notice or referendum requirement of article III, section 10, of the Florida Constitution. Upon a motion for summary judgment by Appellee License Acquisitions, LLC, an intervenor, the trial court reached the opposite conclusion. Because the Act is a special law unconstitutionally enacted in the guise of a general law, as shown through undisputed evidence in the record, we conclude that the trial court should have granted an earlier motion for summary judgment by Appellants.

I.FACTS

The Act added the following text to section 550.054, Florida Statutes, effective July 1, 2010:

(14)(a) Any holder of a permit to conduct jai alai may apply to the division to convert such permit to a permit to conduct greyhound racing in lieu of jai alai if:
1. Such permit is located in a county in which the division has issued only two pari-mutuel permits pursuant to this section;
2. Such permit was not previously converted from any other class of permit; and
3. The holder of the permit has not conducted jai alai games during a period of 10 years immediately preceding his or her application for conversion under this subsection.
(b) The division, upon application from the holder of a jai alai permit meeting all conditions of this section, shall convert the permit and shall issue to the permitholder a permit to conduct greyhound racing. A permitholder of a permit converted under this section shall be required to apply for and conduct a full schedule of live racing each fiscal year to be eligible for any tax credit provided by this chapter. The holder of a permit converted pursuant to this subsection or any holder of a permit to conduct greyhound racing located in a county in which it is the only permit issued pursuant to this section who operates at a leased facility pursuant to s. 550.475 may move the location for which the permit has been issued to another location within a 30-mile radius of the location fixed in the permit issued in that county, provided the move does not cross the county boundary and such location is approved under the zoning regulations of the county or municipality in which the permit is located, and upon such relocation may use the permit for the conduct of pari-mutuel wagering and the operation of a cardroom. The provisions of s. 550.6305(9)(d) and (f) shall apply to any permit converted under this subsection and shall continue to apply to any permit which was previously included under and subject to such provisions before a conversion pursuant to this section occurred.

Ch. 2009-170, § 6 at 1777-78, Laws of Fla.

Appellees West Volusia Racing, Inc., and License Acquisitions applied for the conversion of their jai-alai permits under section 550.054(14)(a) on the day the Act became effective. Approximately three weeks later, Appellee Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering (the “Division”), granted the applications. Shortly thereafter, Appellant Debary instituted this declaratory judgment action. Appellant Cos-ta later joined the suit as an additional plaintiff. Appellants contended below, and now argue on appeal, that the Act is a special law because the criterion specified in section 550.054(14)(a)l permanently closes the class of permits eligible for conversion. This criterion provides that a permit is not eligible unless it is “located in a county in which the division has issued only two pari-mutuel permits pursuant to [section 550.054].” § 550.054(14)(a)l. According to Appellants, at the time the Act was passed, precisely two permits met this criterion, and no reasonable possibility exists that any other permits will ever qualify for conversion absent a change in the law. Seeking summary judgment, Debary and Costa supported this contention with the deposition testimony of Jim Barnes, whose position with the Division requires him to process the applications for permit conversion under section 550.054(14)(a).

Barnes opined that a permit cannot qualify for conversion under section 550.054(14)(a) unless it is located in a county that has exactly two permits issued under section 550.054 (no more and no fewer). He also provided the following factual information, which is undisputed. Jai-alai permits, including those recently converted under the Act, exist in nine Florida counties: Broward, Gadsden, Hamilton, Hillsborough, Marion, Miami-Dade, Palm Beach, St. Lucie, and Volusia. Of these counties, only Marion, Palm Beach, and Volusia have precisely two permits that have been issued under section 550.054. Three counties have only one such permit, and the remaining counties have more than two. The three counties with one section 550.054 permit, which is a jai-alai permit, are Gadsden, Hamilton, and St. Lucie. The one permit located in Gadsden County has been previously converted from a jai-alai to greyhound and then back to jai-alai.

According to Barnes, of the nine counties with jai-alai permits, only Volusia and Palm Beach meet the qualification criteria. He explained that Marion County does not qualify for conversion because there is no greyhound permit in the county with which the jai-alai permit could pair. This opinion is apparently based on the assumption that no jai-alai permitholder would convert its permit under section 550.054(14)(a) unless the permitholder could enter into a leasing arrangement with another greyhound facility and take advantage of the card-room provision of section 550.054(14)(b). Barnes also confirmed, however, that Marion County’s jai-alai permit is active.

Barnes’ testimony indicates that the issuance of new section 550.054 permits in the counties with a jai-alai permit that is currently the only section 550.054 permit in the county would be legally impossible due to restrictions contained in section 550.054(2). This provision prohibits the issuance of a permit “to conduct horse-races, harness horse races, or dograces at a location within 100 miles of an existing pari-mutuel facility, or for jai alai within 50 miles of an existing pari-mutuel facility.” § 550.054(2), Fla. Stat. (2010).

According to Barnes, only two locations exist in Florida where a new pari-mutuel facility can be located consistently with the mileage restriction of section 550.054(2). One such location is in an unspecified county in the Panhandle, and the other is in Dixie County. After acknowledging these locations, Barnes confirmed that a single new pari-mutuel facility in either location would not bring the county within the geographical requirements of section 550.054(14), because the county would need two section 550.054 permits to qualify and neither county has an existing facility. Ultimately, Barnes confirmed that no counties can come within the reach of section 550.054(14)(a)l, because of either the buffer requirement of section 550.054(2) or “other factors such as being the only permit in the county.”

License Acquisitions urged the trial court to read subsections (a) and (b) of section 550.054(14) together to determine if the law can be applied to others in the future. License Acquisitions opined that the purpose of the law is to allow the relocation of facilities and operation of card rooms as provided in subsection (b). License Acquisitions contended that the statute applies to greyhound permits first and that the conversion provision exists simply to open the relocation and card-room provision to facilities with dormant jai-alai permits. According to License Acquisitions, if the relocation and card-room provision may be applied to other permit-holders in the future, the entire act must be considered a general law. In addition to its primary argument urging the consideration of subsection (b), License Acquisitions theorized that the two-permit criterion of subsection (a)l could apply to counties other than Palm Beach and Volu-sia in the future. License Acquisitions explained that a permitholder in a county with more than two permits could bring itself within the reach of subsection (a)l by acquiring another permitholder.

The trial court denied Appellants’ motion for summary judgment. Thereafter, License Acquisitions moved for summary judgment, reasserting the arguments it raised previously concerning the openness of the class created by either subsection (a) or subsections (a) and (b) together. License Acquisitions provided evidence to support the proposition that several pairs of greyhound facilities could take advantage of subsection (b), either immediately or after moving the facilities no more than thirty miles. The trial court agreed with License Acquisitions’ position that it had to construe both subsections together to determine whether the Act creates a closed class. Under this interpretation of Florida’s special-law jurisprudence, and in consideration of License Acquisitions’ evidence, the trial court granted summary judgment for Appellees and declared the Act valid.

II. ANALYSIS

Appellants challenge both summary-judgment rulings. The challenge to the ruling on Appellants’ motion for summary judgment, however, is dispositive. We review this ruling de novo, applying the standard that summary judgment must be granted if there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is enti-tied to judgment upon an application of the law to the undisputed facts. See Castleberry v. Edward M. Chadbourne, Inc., 810 So.2d 1028, 1029 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). Our application of this standard to Appellants’ motion for summary judgment is based on the record as it existed at the time of the trial court’s ruling on that motion. See Tiger Point Golf & Country Club v. Hipple, 977 So.2d 608, 609-10 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007).

To determine whether the undisputed facts in Barnes’ deposition entitle Appellants to judgment as a matter of law, we will examine Florida’s special-law jurisprudence with particular attention to the parimutuel legislation context; decide whether subsection (b) should play a part in classifying the law as special or general; and then resolve disagreements between the parties concerning the proper interpretation of section 550.054(14)(a)1. After providing this legal background, we will apply the law to the facts elicited in Barnes’ testimony to decide whether those facts are sufficient to show conclusively that the Act is a special law.

A. Standards Governing the “Special Law Versus General Law” Inquiry

Article III, section 10, of the Florida Constitution forbids the Legislature to pass a special law without either providing advance notice of intent to enact the law or conditioning the law’s effectiveness upon a referendum of the electors of the areas affected. There is no dispute that the Legislature failed to follow this requirement in passing the Act. At issue is whether section 550.054(14) is actually a special law passed in the guise of a general law.

As the term is used in the Florida Constitution, a special law is “a special or local law.” Fla. Dep’t. of Business & Prof'l Regulation v. Gulfstream Park Racing Ass’n, Inc., 967 So.2d 802, 807 (Fla.2007) (“Gulfstream II”) (quoting Art. X, § 12(g), Fla. Const.). Case law defines “special law,” “local law,” and “general law” as follows:

[A] special law is one relating to, or designed to operate upon, particular persons or things, or one that purports to operate upon classified persons or things when classification is not permissible or the classification adopted is illegal; a local law is one relating to, or designed to operate only in, a specifically indicated part of the state, or one that purports to operate within classified territory when classification is not permissible or the classification adopted is illegal.
A general law operates universally throughout the state, or uniformly upon subjects as they may exist throughout the state, or uniformly within permissible classifications by population of counties or otherwise, or is a law relating to a state function or instrumentality.

Id. (quoting State ex rel. Landis v. Harris, 120 Fla. 555, 163 So. 237, 240 (1934)).

In Biscayne Kennel Club, Inc. v. Florida State Racing Commission, 165 So.2d 762, 763-64 (Fla.1964), the Florida Supreme Court identified two criteria that render a law general when it operates on the basis of a classification system. First, the class affected or regulated must be open, meaning that it must be potentially applicable to people or entities in the future. See Biscayne, 165 So.2d at 763-64; see also Ocala Breeders’ Sales Co., Inc. v. Fla. Gaming Ctrs., Inc., 731 So.2d 21, 25 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (“If it is possible in the future for others to meet the criteria set forth in the statute, then it is a general law and not a special law.”). Second, there must be “a rational distinction between those in the class and those outside it[] when the purpose of the legislation and the subject of the regulation are considered.” Biscayne, 165 So.2d at 763-64. In a later case addressing challenges to pari-mutuel legislation under article III, section 10, the Florida Supreme Court essentially consolidated the two criteria for the purpose of such challenges, noting that a closed class in this context “indicates an arbitrary classification scheme.” Dep’t of Business Regulation v. Classic Mile, 541 So.2d 1155, 1158 n. 4 (Fla.1989). The court held that the dispositive fact in determining whether a reasonable relationship exists between a classification in pari-mutuel legislation and the subject matter covered is whether the class is potentially open. Id. at 1159.

The standard determining whether a class is open is “whether there is a reasonable possibility that the class will include others” in the future. Gulfstream II, 967 So.2d at 809. Under this standard, a statute is neither closed “merely because it is unlikely that it will include anyone else,” nor open “merely because there is a theoretical possibility that some day it might include someone else.” Id. (quoting State, Dep’t of Business & Prof'l Regulation v. Gulfstream Park Racing Ass’n, 912 So.2d 616, 622 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)). Rather, the determination of whether a class is open “must be done by a realistic and reasonable assessment.” Id. As this language suggests, the determination of whether a law is special or general can involve questions of both law and fact. See id.

For this reason, the trial court in State, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering v. Gulfstream Park Racing Association, Inc., 912 So.2d 616 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (“Gulfstream I”), took evidence to determine whether there was any reasonable possibility that a statute imposing restrictions on horse-racing permitholders within twenty-five miles of each other would ever be applied to other permithold-ers. The party opposing the law presented evidence that there were only three tracks in the state within twenty-five miles of one another. Id. at 619. The three tracks to which the law applied when enacted were able to exist in such proximity to one another because they opened for business before the Legislature imposed the 100-mile-buffer requirement now embodied in section 550.054(2). 912 So.2d at 621. By the time the law imposing restrictions on tracks within twenty-five miles of one another came into existence, the 100-mile requirement had already been enacted. Id. This factor minimized the likelihood that the law would be applied to other tracks in the future. Id. The party supporting the law, however, pointed out that one type of pari-mutuel facility, tracks for quarter-horse racing, is not subject to the 100-mile requirement. Id. at 619. They theorized that it would be possible in the future for three horse-racing tracks to exist within twenty-five miles of one another in Key West, “if someone were to obtain a thoroughbred horse racing permit there, if two others were to obtain quarter horse racing permits there, and if all three permit holders were located within twenty-five miles of each other.” Id. at 619. Although an expert cartographer conceded that this set of circumstances was possible, there was other evidence indicating that quarter horse racing was no longer profitable; that there had not been a quarter horse race in Florida in at least six years; and that, due to the land requirements for such racing, there was not enough land available in Key West for such a scenario to play out. Id. at 619-20. Accepting this evidence, the trial court deemed the law special. Id.

This Court affirmed the trial court’s ruling. From the trial court’s findings and the interplay between the buffer mandate and the challenged law, this Court concluded that there was no reasonable possibility of the challenged law’s applying to any other area of the state in the future. Id. at 623. The Court characterized the Key West hypothetical scenario and other possibilities the Court considered as “highly contrived situations” demonstrating “no more than a technical possibility” that the statute could be applied to others in the future. Id. Such a possibility was insufficient to make the act at issue a general law. Id.

B. Defining the Relevant Class for the Purpose of Determining Whether the Law Is Special

Appellees assert that, to apply the foregoing principles concerning the open or closed nature of a class, we must consider subsections (a) and (b) of section 550.054(14) together. Appellees contend that these two subsections together form the relevant classification. We disagree.

The Act provides two distinct benefits. First, the Act allows certain jai-alai per-mitholders to convert their permits to greyhound permits. Second, it allows the holders of certain greyhound permits who are leasing facilities pursuant to section 550.475 to move their facilities and operate remote card rooms. While the Legislature undoubtedly intended for those who converted under subsection (a) to be able to take advantage of the benefit conferred in subsection (b), the two subsections still set out different classifications. The two subsections may work together as a practical matter, but nothing in the statutory language indicates that a jai-alai permitholder is prohibited from converting the permit under subsection (a) without taking advantage of the remainder of section 550.054(14). On the contrary, section 550.054(14)(b) provides that the holder of a permit converted under subsection (a) “may” relocate and operate a remote card room as long as it meets other conditions.

It is legally possible for a jai-alai permit-holder to take advantage of subsection (a) even though the restrictions in subsection (b) may prevent it from obtaining the full extent of the benefits available under section 550.054(14) as a whole. As Appellants correctly argue, the Biscayne court upheld a statute as general “[bjecause all of the classifications effected by this act [were] made on the basis of factors which [were] potentially applicable to others” and because the classifications were made on a rational basis. 165 So.2d at 763. This language indicates that each classification made within a statute must be considered independently. Because subsection (a) sets up a classification that is independent of the factors listed in subsection (b), the class it creates must be open for the law to pass constitutional muster.

A contrary holding would remove the effectiveness of article III, section 10. A closed class could always be paired with an independent open class as long as the two classes generally related to the same subject matter, thus creating an obvious loophole to article III, section 10. The effect of making a law applicable to a closed class without providing for advance notice or a referendum does not change simply because the class is recognized in the same statute as an open class.

C. The Meanings of “Only” and “Has Issued”

The language at issue within the classification set forth in section 550.054(14)(a) embodies the requirement that a permit seeking conversion be “located in a county in which the division has issued only two pari-mutuel permits pursuant to this section.” The parties have conflicting interpretations of both “only” and “has issued.” Our review of the statutory language is de novo, except to the extent we must defer to the Division’s interpretation. See Brown v. State, Comm’n on Ethics, 969 So.2d 553, 557 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). Courts must defer to an agency’s interpretation of a statute it administers unless the interpretation is clearly erroneous. Natelson v. Dep’t of Ins., 454 So.2d 31, 32 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). Under this doctrine, deference is due to any agency interpretation within the range of possible interpretations of statutory language. Id. Deference is inappropriate, however, where the agency “has suddenly changed its interpretation of a statute with little or no explanation.” Commc’ns Workers of Am., AFL-CIO v. City of Gainesville, 65 So.3d 1070, 1076 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). Further, the agency’s interpretation should be set aside where it is “in conflict with the state constitution or the plain intent of the statute.” Perkins v. Dep’t of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., Dist. IV, 452 So.2d 1007, 1008 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).

The word “only” is not defined in the statute at issue. Therefore, it is appropriate to consult a dictionary to ascertain the range of possible interpretations. See 1000 Friends of Fla., Inc. v. Palm Beach County, 69 So.3d 1123, 1126 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). “Only” means “[s]olely; merely; for no other purpose; at no other timé; in no otherwise; along; of or by itself; without anything more; exclusive; [or] nothing else or more.” Id. (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 982 (5th ed. 1979)). Thus, “only” requires the exclusion of any alternatives other than the word it modifies. Applying this concept to the statute at issue, we conclude that “only two” means two and not one, three, or more.

Below, the Division’s representative, Barnes, interpreted the word “only” in precisely this way. On appeal, the Division has abandoned this interpretation, instead arguing that “only” means “no more than.” We hold that Barnes’ interpretation accurately reflects the plain language of the statute and, therefore, adopt it as the appropriate interpretation. Because the Division’s position on appeal is at odds with the plain language of the statute, it is not entitled to deference.

The meaning of “has issued” in the phrase “in which the division has issued only two permits” is also plain. It is in question because Appellees have posited that counties that presently have more than two permits in effect may later have only two permits in effect, if mergers or revocations occur. The literal meaning of the present perfect verb tense the Legislature used requires the Division to determine, at the present time, how many permits have previously been issued in a given county. The statute does not provide any indication that the Division is to exclude permits that are no longer in effect. Thus, the Division’s inquiry ends with the answer to the question of how many permits have historically been issued. We are not at liberty to read exceptions into the plain language of a statute. See Saleeby v. Rocky Elson Constr., Inc., 3 So.3d 1078, 1086 (Fla.2009). Rather, we are to give effect to the plain language of a statute unless the plain language is so absurd as to be clearly contrary to legislative intent. See State v. Hackley, 95 So.3d 92, 95-96 (Fla.2012).

Although we may question the purpose of focusing on the number of permits that have ever been issued, this requirement is not absurd or at odds with any expressed legislative intent. In fact, this interpretation comports with the remainder of section 550.054(14)(a), which uses the historical consideration of whether a permit has ever been converted as one criterion for permit conversion. This interpretation is also supported by the rule of statutory construction that the use of different terms in different statutes on the same subject indicates that the Legislature intended distinct meanings. Guckenberger v. Seminole Cnty., 979 So.2d 407, 409 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). In other statutes setting forth different classification schemes for pari-mu-tuel permits, the Legislature used the present-tense phrase “there are” to guide the Division’s inquiry concerning the relationship between a county or area and a number of permits. See, e.g., §§ 550.615(7), (9); 550.6805(9)(d), (f). Thus, when the Legislature intends to create a classification criterion with respect to the conditions that exist at a given time, as opposed to historical considerations, it knows how to do so.

D. Application of the Law to the Undisputed Facts

With the foregoing legal concepts in mind, we conclude that the law challenged in this case sets forth, on its face, very specific limiting criteria for conversion of jai-alai permits into greyhound permits. The law is so specific that the Legislature essentially described specific counties as the ones where jai-alai permits may be converted to greyhound permits. Cf. W. Flagler Kennel Club, Inc. v. Fla. State Racing Comm’n, 153 So.2d 5, 7 (Fla.1963) (observing that a statute’s classification was arbitrary because “the descriptive technique [was] employed merely for identification rather than classification”).

Barnes unequivocally testified that there are exactly two counties in Florida that currently qualify for conversion under section 550.054(14)(a). From our independent review of the factual information Barnes provided, it appears that one more county, Marion, may qualify in the future if its permit falls dormant for ten years and if its permit has not previously been converted. Assuming for the sake of decision that Marion County has a reasonable possibility of qualifying in the future, Appellants have nevertheless shown that the law is special, as the addition of one county to the two that presently qualify does not render the class open. Because the identity of the single county to which the law may be applied in the future is readily ascertainable and not subject to change, the law is still “one relating to, or designed to operate upon, particular persons or things.” Harris, 163 So. at 240 (defining “special law”). Barnes’ uncontested testimony establishes conclusively that, under the current state of the law, section 550.054(14)(a) has the potential of applying to three specific counties in Florida and no others.

No counties other than Marion, Palm Beach, and Volusia had only two section 550.054 permits, including one jai-alai permit, either on the effective date of the Act or at the time of Barnes’ deposition. Three counties, St. Lucie, Hamilton, and Gadsden, had only one permit, which was the jai-alai permit. However, Gadsden was ineligible because its permit had already been converted, which violates the criterion specified in section 550.054(14)(a)2. St. Lucie and Hamilton Counties might qualify theoretically, but only if a new permit is issued in one of those two counties pursuant to section 550.054. Barnes’ testimony indicates that such an occurrence is legally impossible given the buffer requirement of section 550.054(2).

According to Barnes, only two counties in Florida have a location consistent with the mileage restriction of section 550.054(2), and there is no existing parimutuel permit in either of those counties. From this testimony, we conclude that these two locations are the only places where a new section 550.054 permit can legally be issued. These facts leave room for only one scenario in which a permit-holder might qualify for conversion under section 550.054(14)(a) in the future. One might open any pari-mutuel facility under a section 550.054 permit in one of the two locations Barnes identified, and a new jai-alai facility might open fifty or more miles from that location, but still in the same county, fall dormant, and then apply for conversion. This possibility is merely technical, if it exists at all, and constitutes a highly contrived scenario that is insufficient to justify a conclusion that the class established by section 550.054(14)(a) is open.

Appellees’ argument that counties with more than two permits at the present time might fall under the category of counties referenced in section 550.054(14) (a) 1 if a permit is revoked by the Division or acquired by another permitholder is misguided. Such a scenario would not change the number of permits that have been issued in any county. The same three counties would still be the only counties in this state with a presently existing jai-alai permit where the Department has issued only two section 550.054 permits. Barnes’ testimony indicates that the counties presently having only one permit will not be issued new permits due to the mileage restrictions of section 550.054(2). Therefore, the only additional permits that might ever comply with the criteria of section 550.054(14)(a) are those that do not yet exist. As we have concluded above, no reasonable possibility exists that those permits will come into existence and proceed to meet the remaining requirements of the class.

Because the undisputed material facts establish that there is no reasonable possibility that any permits other than those that have either already converted under section 550.054(14)(a) or the one that may convert if it falls dormant for ten years, we conclude that chapter 2009-170, section 6, is a special law. Furthermore, we can conceive of no rational basis for distinguishing between counties where two permits have been issued and counties where one or three permits have been issued, particularly in light of the fact that the statutory language does not allow the Division to consider only the presently existing permits. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for entry of summary judgment for Appellants on their request for a declaration that chapter 2009-170, section 6, is unconstitutional. It is undisputed, and we agree, that the remainder of chapter 2009-170 is severable and is unaffected by this decision. Because the trial court’s final order addressed other matters not challenged in this appeal, it is otherwise affirmed.

No additional motions for rehearing will be entertained. The Clerk is directed to issue the mandate forthwith.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED.

BENTON, C.J., ROBERTS, J., and WRIGHT, WILLIAM L, Associate Judge, Concur.

      . Appellants provided counter evidence. Because we conclude that Appellants' earlier motion should have been granted based on the application of subsection (a) alone, we express no opinion as to whether License Acquisitions’ evidence was sufficient to show the absence of a genuine issue of material fact as to the reach of subsection (b) or whether Appellants’ counter evidence was sufficient to overcome such a showing.

      . None of the parties have acknowledged that section 550.054(14)(a)l may be applied to Marion County in the future. Nevertheless, the existence of this possibility is unmistakable from the facts provided in Barnes' affidavit.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: CLARK, J.

license: Public Domain

text:
    DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE o/b/o Lashawndria E. MASH, Appellant, v. Miguel D. INGRAM, Appellee.
    No. 1D12-2331.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 10, 2013.
    Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General and Toni C. Bernstein, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
    No appearance for Appellee.
   CLARK, J.

The Department of Revenue (DOR) appeals the final agency action setting the child support obligations of the father in this administrative support proceeding under section 409.2563, Florida Statutes. This case was previously before this court in Dep’t of Revenue ex rel. Mash v. Ingram, 81 So.3d 643 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). The administrative support order in that case was reversed based on the ruling in Dep’t of Revenue ex rel. Sherman v. Daly, 74 So.3d 165 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011), where this court held that section 61.30(11), Florida Statutes, did not provide authority to deviate from the statutory child support guidelines for equitable reasons when no documented parental time-sharing plan was in place. The order now on appeal is the final administrative support order upon remand.

On remand, the administrative law judge established the father’s current child support obligation in accordance with the child support guidelines in section 61.30, Florida Statutes and no error in this calculation has been shown by the Department. However, the Department correctly argues that the calculation of the father’s retroactive child support obligation erroneously included credit for his “in-kind contribution” of child-rearing responsibilities, in an amount of $352.00.

Section 61.30(17), Florida Statutes, requires the court to consider “actual payments made by a parent to the other parent or the child or third parties for the benefit of the child throughout the proposed retroactive period” in determining a retroactive child support obligation. § 61.30(17)(b), Fla. Stat. (2011). It is possible that gifts purchased for the benefit of the child might qualify as “actual payments ... for the benefit of the child” as contemplated by section 61.30(17). Dep’t of Revenue ex rel. Soto v. Soto, 28 So.3d 171 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). However, there is no provision in the statute allowing credit for “in-kind contribution of child-rearing responsibilities” to be applied to a retroactive child support obligation, as the administrative law judge ordered in this case. Because retroactive child support is a creature of statute, calculations, including credits, are governed solely by the provisions of the statute and the administrative tribunal has no inherent authority to fashion an equitable remedy not specifically provided for in the applicable legislative enactment. See Dep’t of Revenue ex rel. Sherman v. Daly, 74 So.3d 165 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (plain language of statute not to be extended beyond express terms; absence of a court-ordered or —approved parenting plan precludes application of sections 61.30(11)(a) and (11)(b) to make any adjustment to guidelines child support obligation); Kern v. Kern, 360 So.2d 482 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978) (“Dissolution proceedings, although cognizable in equity, are creatures of statute.”).

The concept of crediting one parent’s retroactive child support obligation with a monetary value for days and nights spent with the child in a proportion indicating that the child “visited” that parent is not consistent with the current public policy of this state, described in section 61.13(2)(c)1. & 2., Florida Statutes, “that each minor child has frequent and continuing contact with both parents” and that “parental responsibility for a minor child shall be shared by both parents” unless detrimental to the child. See Ch. 2008-61, § 8, Laws of Fla.; In re Amendments to Florida Supreme Court Approved Family Law Forms, 59 So.3d 792, n. 1 (Fla.2010); Knowles v. Knowles, 79 So.3d 870, n. 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012); see also, Schwieterman v. Schwieterman, 114 So.3d 984, 2012 WL 1885907 (Fla. 5th DCA May 25, 2012) (Legislature has “abolished the concept of custody and replaced it with parenting plans and time sharing”). A father’s parenting time with his child is both his right and responsibility. Chapter 61 purposely does not relegate any parent to “visitor” status and monetary credit for time spent on child-rearing prior to a court-ordered or court — approved parenting plan should not be presumed to be an extraordinary expenditure by that parent.

In light of the foregoing, the portion of the final administrative support order after remand awarding Appellee credit of $352.00 toward his retroactive child support obligation is hereby reversed. In all other respects, the final administrative support order after remand is affirmed. This case is remanded for the entry of a corrected final administrative support order imposing the retroactive support obligation without the $352.00 credit.

WETHERELL and MAKAR, JJ., concur.


author: PER CURIAM.

text:
    Robert AKE, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES SUGAR CORPORATION and Corvel Corporation, Appellees.
    No. 1D13-0602.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 10, 2013.
    Jonathan B. Israel of Harris, Guidi, Ros-ner, Dunlap and Rudolph, P.A., Jacksonville, for Appellant.
    Christine M. Tomasello of Pallo, Marks, Hernandez, Gechijian and DeMay, P.A., Palm Beach Gardens, for Appellees.
   PER CURIAM.

In this workers’ compensation case, Claimant filed a notice of appeal on February 7, 2013, challenging a February 6, 2012, “final evidentiary order,” dismissing with prejudice his claims for permanent total disability benefits. We conclude that the February 6, 2012, order was a final appealable order under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.180(b)(1), which order was not appealed within thirty days of rendition. We therefore dismiss this appeal as untimely.

Background

On February 7, 2013, Claimant filed a notice of appeal challenging a February 6, 2012, “final evidentiary order,” dismissing with prejudice his claims for permanent total disability benefits contained within two November 2011 petitions for benefits. Notably, however, this order did not dismiss all of the claims contained in the pending petitions for benefits; instead, it directed that the surviving claims (for temporary disability benefits) “proceed to mediation,” a necessary statutory condition-precedent to the conduction of a final hearing and the adjudication of the claims on the merits. Claimant, being cognizant of the fact that the appealed order was rendered more than one year before the notice of appeal was filed, posited in his notice of appeal that the February 2012 order did not become final until the entry of a subsequent order, entered on January 8, 2013, which order approved the parties’ stipulations regarding the resolution of the claims for temporary benefits-those claims which had not been mediated at the time the appealed order was rendered.

Upon receiving Claimant’s notice of appeal, this Court screened the appealed order to determine whether it has jurisdiction over this case — as is does in each appeal filed with this court — based on the timeliness of the appeal and the finality of the order appealed. Because the claims for permanent total disability benefits were disposed of with finality in the February 7, 2012, order, and further, because the surviving claims for temporary disability benefits were reserved upon and had not been the subject of a mediation conference, this Court entered an order requiring Claimant to show cause why the February 6, 2012, order should not be considered a final order under this Court’s decision in Parodi v. Fla. Contracting Co., Inc., 16 So.3d 958, 960-61 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (reviewing order as final where it ruled with finality on some claims, but reserved adjudication on unmediated petitions) — making the appeal filed in February 2013 untimely. In his response to the order to show cause, Claimant argues that this court has consistently held that an order that reserves jurisdiction on outstanding claims is nonfinal and nonap-pealable. As we explain below, Claimant’s argument, although partially correct, is also incomplete and ultimately unavailing.

Analysis

Section 440.25(5)(a), Florida Statutes (2011), provides that “Procedures with respect to appeals from orders of judges of compensation claims shall be governed by rules adopted by the Supreme Court.” Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.180 — the appellate rule adopted by the Florida Supreme Court relative to appeals from workers’ compensation orders — provides that this Court shall review “any final order,” as well as any nonfinal order that adjudicates jurisdiction, venue, or compensability (provided certain certifications regarding the case are made by the lower tribunal). See Fla. RApp. P. 9.180(b)(1). This Court has held that in the context of a workers’ compensation case, an order that decides all issues then ripe for adjudication is considered to be a “final order” — even if the order does not represent an end to all judicial labor in the case, and even where additional claims not then ripe for adjudication remain pending. See Bradley v. Hurricane Rest., 652 So.2d 443, 444 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (“By definition, a worker’s compensation order that decides all issues ripe for adjudication is a final order and appealable.”) (citing Town of Palm Beach v. Watts, 426 So.2d 1312 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)). The rationale for this modified definition of “final” and “non-final” orders for workers’ compensation cases is based on the fact that workers’ compensation cases generally proceed on a piecemeal basis — with various entitlements to benefits becoming due at different times. See Watts, 426 So.2d at 1312. This adjudicatory process creates the possibility of numerous orders entered in sequence, each adjudicating with finality the injured workers’ entitlement to benefits — none of which, necessarily, signify the exhaustion of all judicial labors in the case as a whole (the general standard for determining the finality of an order in other types of cases, see Howard v. Ziegler, 40 So.2d 776, 777 (Fla.1949)). See Bradley, 652 So.2d at 444.

This court, accounting for the sequential nature of the workers’ compensation adjudicatory process, has consistently held that a final workers’ compensation order is one that finally disposes of all claims that are procedurally ripe to be adjudicated. See Vazquez v. Truly Nolan of Am., 752 So.2d 68 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (holding order nonfinal where parties agreed to reservation on issue ripe for adjudication and tried by parties); Emro Mktg. v. Schwier, 670 So.2d 1141, 1142 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (“[O]rders which adjudicate all matters ripe for hearing may always be immediately appealed.”); see also Bradley, 652 So.2d at 444. Further, this court has concluded that where some petitions are procedurally ripe for adjudication, and others are not for want of mediation (a mandatory condition precedent to the presentation of a claim at a merits hearing, see section 440.25(2), Florida Statutes (2010) (stating “mediation conference is required to be held unless this requirement is waived by the Deputy Chief Judge”)), an order that contains both a final disposition of the claims that are ripe for adjudication and a reservation on unmediated claims results in the entry of a final, appealable order. See Parodi v. Fla. Contracting Co., Inc., 16 So.3d 958, 960-61 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (reviewing order as final where it contained reservation on unmediated petitions). Here, the JCC, by finally ruling on the claims for permanent total disability benefits in the February 2012 order, and by not ruling on unmediated claims for temporary disability benefits and directing that such claims proceed to mediation (an unmet condition precedent to the conduction of a merit hearing on the claims), entered an order that finally adjudicated all claims ripe for adjudication, reserving upon those claims not ripe for adjudication. Thus, under this court’s precedent, we conclude that the February 6, 2012, order is a final order as the term is used in Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.180(b)(1). Accordingly, Claimant’s notice of appeal, filed more than thirty days after the rendition of this order, is untimely. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.180(b)(3). We therefore dismiss this appeal.

DISMISSED.

WOLF, WETHERELL, and MAKAR, JJ., Concur.

      . We note that it would be helpful for litigants and this Court if judges of compensation claims were to include, within orders reserving adjudication on pending petitions and claims, a declaration as to whether the reserved upon claims have been subjected to a mediation conference. With this information established, there should be little confusion as to whether a given order is final and appeal-able.


text:
    The FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY, BOARD OF TRUSTEES, Appellant, v. Brenda MONK, Appellee.
    No. 1D12-2949.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 10, 2013.
    Brian C. Keri, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
    Brant Hargrove, Tallahassee, for Appel-lee.
   PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s denial of appellant’s motion for attorney’s fees pursuant to section 57.105, Florida Statutes (2009), finding no abuse of discretion. However, the trial court did not have discretion to deny the recovery of costs by appellant, as the prevailing party, under section 57.041, Florida Statutes (2009). Campbell v. State, Dep’t of Legal Affairs, 110 So.3d 478 (Fla. 1st DCA Mar.8, 2013). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the taxation of costs in appellant’s favor.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED for further proceedings.

PADOVANO, THOMAS, and SWANSON, JJ., concur.


text:
    Al PRINCE, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.
    No. 1D13-0771.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 14, 2013.
    A1 Prince, pro se, Petitioner.
    Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

Petitioner is granted a belated appeal of the May 15, 2012, order denying motion for postconviction relief in Duval County Circuit Court case number 16-2006-CF-00754-AXXX-MA. Upon issuance of mandate in this cause, a copy of this opinion shall be provided to the clerk of the circuit court for treatment as the notice of appeal. Fla. R.App. P. 9.141(c)(6)(D).

VAN NORTWICK, THOMAS, and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.'


text:
    Nathaniel HAY, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.
    No. 1D13-0512.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 14, 2013.
    Matt Shirk, Public Defender, Jacksonville; Michelle Barki, Assistant Public Defender, Green Cove Springs, for Petitioner.
    ' Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Heather Flanagan Ross, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

Petitioner is granted a belated appeal of the October 25, 2012, judgment and sentence in Clay County Circuit Court case number 2011-CF-001948. Upon issuance of mandate in this cause, a copy of this opinion shall be provided to the clerk of the circuit court for treatment as the notice of appeal. Fla. R.App. P. 9.141(c)(6)(D). If petitioner qualifies for appointed counsel, the trial court shall appoint counsel to represent petitioner on appeal.

VAN NORTWICK, THOMAS, and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.


text:
    Bobby Kevin WILLIAMS, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.
    No. 1D13-0389.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 14, 2013.
    Bobby Kevin Williams, pro se, Petitioner.
    Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

Petitioner is granted a belated appeal of the October 19, 2012, judgment and sentence in Santa Rosa County Circuit Court case number 11-000248-CF-MXAX. Upon issuance of mandate in this cause, a copy of this opinion shall be provided to the clerk of the circuit court for treatment as the notice of appeal. Fla. R.App. P. 9.141(c)(6)(D). If petitioner qualifies for appointed counsel, the trial court shall appoint counsel to represent petitioner on appeal.

VAN NORTWICK, THOMAS, and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.


text:
    Delmar REINHEIMER, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.
    No. 1D13-0081.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 14, 2013.
    Delmar Reinheimer, pro se, Petitioner.
    Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

Petitioner is granted a belated appeal of the October 10, 2012, order denying defendant’s motion for postconviction relief in Clay County Circuit Court case numbers 10-2010-CF-000745-AXXX-MA and 10-1995-CF-00998-AXXX-MA. Upon issuance of mandate in this cause, a copy of this opinion shall be provided to the clerk of the circuit court for treatment as the notice of appeal. Fla. R.App. P. 9.141(c)(6)(D).

VAN NORTWICK, THOMAS, and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.


text:
    Edgar B. FARMER, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.
    No. 1D12-4288.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 14, 2013.
    Edgar B. Farmer, pro se, Petitioner.
    Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

The petition is granted and Edgar B. Farmer is hereby afforded belated appeal from judgment and sentence in Santa Rosa County case number 2009-CF-1691. Upon issuance of mandate in this cause, a copy of this opinion will be provided to the clerk of the lower tribunal who shall treat it as a notice of appeal. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.141(c)(6)(D).

The circuit court is directed to appoint counsel to represent petitioner in the direct appeal if he qualifies for such an appointment.

PETITION GRANTED.

VAN NORTWICK, THOMAS, and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.


text:
    Antwan MANN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D11-3033.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 14, 2013.
    Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, Gail E. Anderson, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
    Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Donna A. Gerace, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
   PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals his conviction as a principal to attempted armed robbery and second-degree felony murder. Appellant argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion for judgment of acquittal, because the State failed to present sufficient evidence to establish that he was a principal to the crimes. We disagree and affirm. We agree with Appellant, however, that there was insufficient evidence upon which the jury could find that Appellant actually possessed a firearm at the time of the attempted robbery. Consequently, the imposition of the mandatory ten-year -minimum sentence the trial court assessed pursuant to section 775.087(2)(a), Florida Statutes, was erroneous. We reverse and remand for resentencing in accordance with this opinion. Appellant need not be present for the resentencing.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED with instructions.

VAN NORTWICK, THOMAS, and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.


text:
    Nancy H. AUSTIN, Wife, Appellant, v. Roy E. AUSTIN, Husband, Appellee.
    No. 1D12-0220.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 15, 2013.
    Nancy H. Austin, pro se, Appellant.
    Anthony Paul Penoso, Jacksonville, for Appellee.
   PER CURIAM.

DISMISSED. Snelson v. Snelson, 440 So.2d 477 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983).

BENTON, C. J, WETHERELL and ROWE, JJ., concur.


text:
    Jimmy WARD and Dale Ward, Appellants, v. Myrtle WARD, et al., Appellee.
    No. 1D13-0691.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 15, 2013.
    Bert Moore, Crestview, for Appellants.
    Daniel C. Perri, Shalimar (no appearance), for Appellee.
   PER CURIAM.

DISMISSED. See generally Monticello Ins. Co. v. Thompson, 743 So.2d 1215 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999).

BENTON, C.J., WETHERELL and ROWE, JJ., concur.


text:
    Jose R. MEJIA, Appellant, v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND CONSUMER SERVICES, Appellee.
    No. 1D13-1141.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 15, 2013.

      Jay S. Levenstein, Deputy Commissioner, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. Jose R. Mejia, pro se, Appellant.
    John A. Raymaker, General Counsel, and Jared S. Gardner, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
   PER CURIAM.

DISMISSED. Raysor v. Raysor, 706 So.2d 400 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998).

BENTON, C. J., WETHERELL and ROWE, JJ., concur.


text:
    BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP fka Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, LP, Appellant, v. Robert LAW, et al., Appellee.
    No. 1D13-1425.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 15, 2013.
    Christopher L. Hixson and Albert Zaka-rian, Tampa, for Appellant.
    Daniel C. Consuegra, Tampa, for Appel-lee.
   PER CURIAM.

DISMISSED. Polk County v. Sofka, 702 So.2d 1243, 1245 (Fla.1997).

BENTON, C. J., WETHERELL and ROWE, JJ., concur.


author:
GUIDRY, Justice.
     VICTORY, J.,

text:
    Rodney CHAMPAGNE, II and Wife, Nicole Champagne, both Individually and on behalf of Elizabeth Nicole Champagne v. AMERICAN ALTERNATIVE INSURANCE CORPORATION, Smeal Fire Apparatus Co., Waterous Company, Lafayette Consolidated Government, Lafayette Parish Fire Protection Association, and Daniel Lavergne.
    No. 2012-CC-1697.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 19, 2013.

      Olinde & Mercer, LLC, Henry Dupont Heck Olinde, Jr., Esq., Drew Bernard, Esq., Baton Rouge, LA, for Applicant.
    Larry Curtis Esq., Broussard & Kay, Hal James Broussard Esq., Ped C. Kay, III, Esq., Daigle Rayburn LLC, Susan A. Daigle, Esq., John Daniel Rayburn, Jr. Esq., Lafayette, LA, Johnson, Stiltner & Rahman, Patricia Jackson Delpit, Esq., Baton Rouge, LA, Jones, Walker, Wae-chter, Poitevent, Carrere & Denegre, Ian Alexander MacDonald, Esq., Norman Eugene, Anseman, III, Esq., Lafayette, LA, Preis & Roy, PLC, Rachal Dené Chance, Esq., New Orleans, LA, for Respondent.
   GUIDRY, Justice.

|,We granted the writ application in this matter to review an issue of first impression in this court: whether the Louisiana Workers’ Compensation Law, specifically La. R.S. 23:1036, which provides workers’ compensation as the exclusive remedy for a volunteer member of a fire company in claims for personal injury against the “fire company,” similarly applies to claims for personal injury against fellow volunteer members. After reviewing the record and the law, we find the defendants have failed to establish that the Workers’ Compensation Law grants immunity to fellow volunteer members of a volunteer fire company from suits in tort. Accordingly, for the reasons expressed below, we affirm the decisions of the lower courts in denying the defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff, Rodney Champagne, was a volunteer firefighter -with the Duson 12Volunteer Fire Department (“DVFD”). On or about June 28, 2010, plaintiff was testing a water hose on a pumper jack designated as Engine No. 46, along with a fellow firefighter, Daniel Lavergne. During this procedure, plaintiff alleges, the hose wall burst, striking him in the head and causing a skull fracture and permanent injuries. Subsequently, plaintiff and his wife, individually and on behalf of their minor child, filed the instant tort suit against several defendants, including Mr. Lavergne, and American Alternative Insurance Corporation (“AAIC”). AAIC had issued an automobile insurance policy to the fire company that purported to cover Mr. Lavergne.

Defendants AAIC and Mr. Lavergne filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting Mr. Lavergne is immune from tort liability under the Louisiana Workers’ Compensation Law, because he was plaintiffs co-volunteer or co-employee. In support, defendants relied on La. R.S. 23:1036, which provides that workers’ compensation shall constitute the exclusive remedy of volunteer fire members against the fire company. Defendants contended this statute wholly incorporates La. R.S. 23:1032(A)(l)(a), which extends tort immunity to co-employees of the employer or principal. Plaintiffs opposed the motion, arguing La. R.S. 23:1036(A) |sby its own language limited the legislative grant of immunity to the “fire company,” and did not extend to another volunteer member by means of reference to La. R.S. 23:1032.

After a hearing, the trial court denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The trial court reasoned that “[t]he clear language of LSA R.S. 23:1036(A) specifically limits the remedy of a volunteer member to worker compensation benefits against the ‘fire company’ only.” The court found the statute to be “self-limiting and cannot be extended to eliminate a volunteer member’s cause of action in tort against another volunteer member, even with its reference to R.S. 23:1032.” The trial court acknowledged the legislature might have intended to further restrict volunteer members’ claims, but the court found it could not “create such a restriction by, in effect, adding language to the above-cited statute.”

Defendants sought supervisory review from the trial court’s ruling. The court of appeal ordered briefing and oral argument, but a majority ultimately denied the writ application after finding no error in the trial court’s ruling. The majority opinion recognized that the trial court had applied a basic and well-settled principle of statutory construction in resolving an issue of law, that is, “words of law must be given then* generally prevailing meaning.” La. Civ.Code art. 11. The majority further acknowledged that, where statutes are clear and unambiguous, no interpretation thereof may be attempted by the courts. The majority was aware that the letter of the law may not be abandoned in an effort to pursue the spirit thereof, |4but if, as a consequence of following the letter of the law, an absurd result is reached, then it is the duty of courts to seek out the motive which prompted the enactment. The majority further stated “the Louisiana legislature has recognized that ‘[wjhen a law is clear and unambiguous and its application does not lead to absurd consequences, the law shall be applied as written and no further interpretation may be made in search of the intent of the legislature.’” LSA-C.C. art. 9; Sherwood Forest Country Club v. Litchfield, 08-194, pp. 8-9 (La.12/19/08), 998 So.2d 56, 62. In finding no error in the trial court’s denial of the motion for summary judgment, the majority recognized its decision “may make members of the community reluctant to act as volunteers at their local department; however, this issue should be addressed by the legislature.”

The dissenting judge stated that, read together, La. R.S. 23:1036(A) and 23:1032(A)(1) have the effect of not only granting workers’ compensation coverage to volunteer fire fighters, but also shielding them from tort liability for their actions in the course and scope of their work as volunteer fire fighters.

We granted the writ application to review the correctness of the lower courts’ rulings. Champagne v. American Alternative Ins. Corp., 12-1697 (La.11/2/12), 99 So.3d 658.

LAW and ANALYSIS

In this case, the defendants are seeking to avail themselves of the immunity from tort liability granted under the Workers’ Compensation Act, and therefore they have the burden of proving entitlement to such immunity. Mundy v. Department of Health & Human Resources, 593 So.2d 346, 349 (La.1992). Additionally, the defendants have filed for summary judgment on the issue of statutory immunity under La. R.S. 23:1036, and thus carry the burden of proof on the motion for summary judgment, as well as their burden of proof on the issue of immunity. La. C.C.P. art. 966(C).

[sOur review of a grant or denial of a motion for summary judgment is de novo. Independent Fire Ins. Co. v. Sunbeam Corp., 99-2181, p. 7 (La.2/29/00), 755 So.2d 226, 230. A motion for summary judgment -will be granted “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue of material fact, and that the mover is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.” La. C.C.P. art. 966(B). Because there are no material facts genuinely in dispute with regard to the application of the Workers’ Compensation Act, the sole question before us is a purely legal issue, that is, whether the Workers’ Compensation Act, by granting the volunteer firefighter with the sole remedy of workers’ compensation in suits against the “fire company” correspondingly precludes suits in tort by a volunteer firefighter against a fellow volunteer firefighter.

Resolution of this issue requires us to determine the meaning and intent of La. R.S. 23:1036(A). The function of statutory interpretation and the construction given to legislative acts rests with the judicial branch of the government. Red Stick Studio Development, L.L.C. v. State ex rel. Dept. of Economic Development, 10-0193 (La.1/19/11), 56 So.3d 181, 187-88; Touchard v. Williams, 617 So.2d 885 (La.1993). The rules of judicial interpretation of statutes are designed to ascertain and enforce the intent of the legislature in enacting the statute. SWAT 24 Shreveport Bossier, Inc. v. Bond, 2000-1695 (La.6/29/01), 808 So.2d 294, citing Stogner v. Stogner, 98-3044 (La.7/7/99), 739 So.2d 762, 766; State v. Piazza, 596 So.2d 817, 819 (La.1992). The fundamental question in all cases of statutory construction is legislative intent and the reasons that prompted the legislature to enact the law. Succession of Boyter, 99-0761 (La.1/7/00), 756 So.2d 1122, 1128. When a law is clear and unambiguous and its application does not lead to absurd consequences, it shall be applied as written, with no further inquiry made in search of the legislative intent. La. C.C. art. 9; La. R.S. 1:4.

| fiThe meaning and intent of a law is determined by considering the law in its entirety and all other laws concerning. the same subject matter and construing the provision in a manner that is consistent with the express terms of the statute and with the obvious intent of the lawmaker in enacting it. Boyter, 756 So.2d at 1129; Stogner, 739 So.2d at 766. The statute must therefore be applied and interpreted in a manner that is logical and consistent with the presumed fair purpose and intention the legislature had in enacting it. Boyter, 756 So.2d at 1129. Courts should give effect to all parts of a statute and should not adopt a statutory construction that makes any part superfluous or meaningless, if that result can be avoided. Sultana Corp. v. Jewelers Mut. Ins. Co., 03-0360 (La.12/3/03), 860 So.2d 1112; Langlois v. East Baton Rouge Parish Sch. Bd., 99-2007 (La.5/16/00), 761 So.2d 504, 507; Boyter, 756 So.2d at 1129. Furthermore, “the object of the court in construing a statute is to ascertain the legislative intent and, where a literal interpretation would produce absurd consequences, the letter must give way to the spirit of the law and the statute construed so as to produce a reasonable result.” First Nat’l Bank of Boston v. Beckwith Mach. Co., 94-2065 (La.2/20/95), 650 So.2d 1148, 1153 (quoting Smith v. Flournoy, 238 La. 432, 115 So.2d 809, 814 (1959)).

It is well-settled that the Louisiana Workers’ Compensation Law is a quid-pro-quo system that affords the injured worker with certain but limited benefits in exchange for the general immunity from tort liability granted to the employer. Nevertheless, the immunity provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Law derogate from the delictual rights of injured workers existing in the Louisiana Civil Code, and, therefore, must be narrowly construed to make the least, rather than the most, change in the existing body of law. See, e.g., Stelly v. Overhead Door Co. of Baton Rouge, 94-0569 (La.12/8/94), 646 So.2d 905, 909-10; Roberts v. Sewerage & Water Bd. of New Orleans, 92-2048 (La.3/21/94), 634 So.2d 341, 345-46. | ^Accordingly, “every presumption should be on the side of preserving the general tort or delictual rights of an injured worker against the actual wrongdoer, in the absence of explicitly statutory language limiting or excluding such rights.” Roberts, 634 So.2d at 346.

The starting point in the interpretation of any statute, of course, is the language of the statute itself. Touchard, 617 So.2d at 888. The relevant version of La. R.S. 23:1036(A) provides:

A. It is hereby declared by the Legislature of Louisiana that the fire prevention and suppression services provided by volunteer fire companies are vital to the protection of the safety of the citizens of the state. This Section is intended to present the state fire marshal with a means by which he shall provide workers’ compensation coverage to volunteer members of fire companies. The remedies provided herein shall constitute the exclusive remedy of the volunteer member against the fire company as provided in R.S. 23:1032.

Since its amendment in 2009, this statute provides that a person covered under La. R.S. 23:1036, a volunteer firefighter, is entitled only to medical benefits and burial expenses, but no other indemnity benefits under the Workers’ Compensation Law. See La. R.S. 23:1036(0(2) and (H); Acts 2009, No. 304, Sect. 3, eff. July 1, 2009. Although the section, as originally enacted by Acts 1997, No. 1047, Sect. 1, eff. July 11, 1997, additionally provided other indemnity benefits and set forth the method for calculating such benefits, those provisions were repealed in 2009. See Acts 2009, No. 304, Sect. 3, eff. July 1, 2009. Nevertheless, to be entitled to medical benefits and burial expenses under this section since 2009, the volunteer firefighter must be a member carried on the membership list of the organization as of the date of the member’s injury. La. R.S. 23:1036(C)(3). The statute defines a “fire company” as “any organization established to provide fire prevention and suppression services for the general public.” La. R.S. 23:1036(D)(1). “Volunteer members” are defined as “individuals who are carried on the membership list of the organization as active | ¿participants in the normal functions of the organization and who receive nominal or no remuneration for their services.” La. R.S. 23:1036(D)(4). Thus, under the plain wording of La. R.S. 23:1036(A), an otherwise eligible volunteer member of the organization, who is injured in the line of duty, is exclusively limited to medical benefits and burial expenses in non-intentional, personal injury claims against the “fire company,” which is specifically defined in the statute as an “organization” without reference to the “volunteer members” thereof.

Defendants argue La. R.S. 23:1036(A) has an internal inconsistency, in that the first portion of La. R.S. 23:1036(A)’s last sentence, standing in isolation, can be read to limit workers’ compensation immunity solely to the fire company, whereas the last phrase, “as provided in R.S. 23:1032,” specifically incorporates La. R.S. 23:1032, which applies workers’ compensation tort immunity to officers and employees of the employer or principal. According to defendants, when La. R.S. 23:1036 in its entirety is taken into account with the stated purpose therein, the legislature clearly intended to encourage participation in the vital activity of volunteer firefighting by covering volunteer members with all aspects of the Workers’ Compensation Law, including immunities. Defendants maintain a strict construction principle should only be applied as a last resort, when more precise instruments of statutory construction fail to expose the legislature’s intent. Defendants further argue that, to not include co-volunteers as co-employees under La. R.S. 23:1032 is to render the phrase, “as provided in La. R.S. 23:1032,” superfluous and meaningless.

We decline, on the face of the statutory language before us, to conclude the phrase “as provided in La. R.S. 23:1032” found in La. R.S. 23:1036(A) was intended by the legislature to define fellow volunteer members of the fire company as “co-employees” of the organization, to grant such volunteer members immunity from their negligent acts, and, therefore, to limit an injured volunteer member’s 19remedy of redress only to medical benefits and burial expenses from the “fire company.”

La. R.S. 23:1032(A)(l)(a) provides:

A. (l)(a) Except for intentional acts provided for in Subsection B, the rights and remedies herein granted to an employee or his dependent on account of an injury, or compensable sickness or disease for which he is entitled to compensation under this Chapter, shall be exclusive of all other rights, remedies, and claims for damages, including but not limited to punitive or exemplary damages, unless such rights, remedies, and damages are created by a statute, whether now existing or created in the future, expressly establishing same as available to such employee, his personal representatives, dependents, or relations, as against his employer, or any principal or any officer, director, stockholder, partner, or employee of such employer or principal, for said injury, or compensable sickness or disease.

The reference in La. R.S. 23:1036(A) to La. R.S. 23:1032 is not superfluous or meaningless, as R.S. 23:1032 further defines the exclusivity of the remedy and damages, excepting intentional acts and other specifically created rights, as against the “fire company” granted under the Workers’ Compensation Law to volunteer firefighters who are injured in the line of duty. We are not unmindful of the history of executive officer and employee liability under La. R.S. 23:1032 in the workers’ compensation arena — which surely was well-known to the legislature when it enacted La. R.S. 23:1036. See Canter v. Koehring Co., 283 So.2d 716 (La.1973) (holding that an injured worker was allowed to seek recovery in tort from negligent executive officers and their liability insurers); Bazley v. Tortorich, 397 So.2d 475 (La.1981) (Acts 1976, No. 147 amended La. R.S. 23:1032 to extend the employer’s tort immunity to persons previously considered third parties under the Act, including executive officers and employees); see also Walls v. American Optical, 98-0455 (La.9/8/99), 740 So.2d 1262, 1265-66 (discussing executive |10officer immunity in wrongful death suits).

However, the legislature was certainly aware of the jurisprudence of the Louisiana courts holding that a volunteer firefighter is not an “employee” of the fire district, when the legislature first enacted La. R.S. 23:1036 in 1997 and again when it amended the statute in 2009. In Genusa v. Pointe Coupee Volunteer Fire Dist. No. 4, 93-2214 (La.App. 1 Cir. 10/7/94), 644 So.2d 851, the court was called upon to decide whether the Workers’ Compensation Law applies to volunteer firemen. The Genusa court found no employer-employee relationship had been established between the volunteer fireman and the fire district and, therefore, he was not eligible for workers’ compensation benefits from the fire district. In that case, the plaintiff was a member of the volunteer fire district, who had injured his back while attempting to repair a fire truck. He initially applied for and received workers’ compensation benefits, but those benefits were later halted. He then filed a disputed claim for benefits against the fire district and its insurer. The hearing officer dismissed the claim and the court of appeal affirmed.

The Genusa court, noting the prerequisite to any action arising under the Workers’ Compensation Law is the existence of an employer-employee relationship, found no contract of employment, whether express or implied, whereby services are furnished in anticipation of compensation. Genusa, 644 So.2d at 852 (citing Vaughn v. Baton Rouge General Hospital, 421 So.2d 288 (La.App. 1st Cir.1982)). The court reasoned that, as a member of the volunteer fire department, the plaintiffs services were in the nature of a gratuity, and he neither expected nor received financial compensation upon which workers’ compensation benefits could be calculated. Id., 644 So.2d at 853.

The defendants assert the legislature in 1997 passed Act No. 1047, enacting La. R.S. 23:1036, to abrogate Genusa. Although we agree the legislature was likely acting in response to Genusa, by granting the volunteer member some |nworkers’ compensation benefits from the fire company and setting forth the manner of calculating such benefits in the absence of wages from the fire company (provisions that were later repealed), we disagree that the legislature also specifically changed the law to define a volunteer member of a volunteer fire company as an “employee” of the fire company for the purposes of immunity under the workers’ compensation law. We decline to write in the words “volunteer member” in La. R.S. 23:1032(A)(1)(a), nor does our refusal to do so produce an absurd result. As the plaintiff notes, volunteer firemen have always had tort exposure; the tort remedy for volunteer firemen against co-volunteers has always existed; and the fire company in this case purchased insurance coverage to protect its volunteer members from such exposure. As the lower courts reasoned, had the legislature intended to include volunteer firemen under the ambit of the immunity granted by the Workers’ Compensation Act, it could have explicitly used the language “volunteer member” or “volunteer firemen,” as it has done in other statutes offering immunity to volunteer firemen. See, e.g., La. R.S. 37:1735 (immunity for liability for volunteer firemen).

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, we find the lower courts did not err in denying the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the issue of whether the Louisiana Workers’ Compensation Act, specifically La. R.S. 23:1036, which provides workers’ compensation as the exclusive remedy for a volunteer member 112of a fire company in claims for personal injury against the “fire company,” similarly applies to claims for personal injury against fellow volunteer members. After reviewing the record and the law, we find the defendants have failed to establish as a matter of law that the Workers’ Compensation Act grants immunity to a volunteer member of a volunteer fire company from suit in tort filed by a fellow volunteer member. Accordingly, the rulings of the lower courts are affirmed.

AFFIRMED

Judge JEFFERSON D. HUGHES III, assigned as Justice pro tempore, sitting for KIMBALL, C.J. for oral argument. He now sits as an elected associated Justice at the time this opinion is rendered. Retired Judge PATRICK M. SCHOTT, assigned as Justice ad hoc, sitting for WEIMER, J., recused.

VICTORY, Justice, dissents and assigns reasons.

VICTORY, J.,

dissents.

hi dissent from the majority’s holding that the Workers’ Compensation Law does not grant immunity to members of a volunteer fire company from suits in tort brought by co-volunteer firefighters. La. R.S. 23:1036(A) provides that workers’ compensation coverage “shall constitute the exclusive remedy of the volunteer member against the fire company as provided in R.S. 23:1032.” The reference to La. R.S. 23:1032 is not limited to any specific provision to that statute, and thus encompasses La. R.S. 23:1032(A)(1)(a), which provides that “the rights and remedies granted to an employee or his dependent on account of an injury ... shall be exclusive of all other rights ... as against his employer, ..., or employee of such employer ..., for said injury, ...” In my view, as regular firefighters are immune from suit in tort for injuries inflicted on a co-firefighter under La. R.S. 23:1032(A), it makes no sense to interpret to these statutes to deprive volunteer firefighters of this same immunity.

For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully dissent.

       Judge Jefferson D. Hughes III, assigned as Justice pro tempore, sitting for Kimball, C.J. for oral argument. He now sits as an elected associated Justice at the time this opinion is rendered. Retired Judge Patrick M. Schott, assigned as Justice ad hoc, sitting for Justice John Weimer, recused.

      . Plaintiffs also filed suit against Smeal Fire Apparatus Co., the manufacturer of Engine No. 46; Waterous Co., the manufacturer of the centrifugal fire pump; Lafayette Consolidated Government; and Lafayette Parish Fire Protection Association.

      . The AAIC policy included a special endorsement providing coverage for volunteer fire fighters. Plaintiffs filed a cross-motion for summary judgment regarding insurance coverage by AAIC. The trial court granted plaintiffs’ motion, in part, insofar as plaintiffs sought a determination that AAIC provided primary insurance coverage to Mr. Lavergne. This ruling is not under review.

      . La. R.S. 23:1036(A) provides:
      A. It is hereby declared by the Legislature of Louisiana that the fire prevention and suppression services provided by volunteer fire companies are vital to the protection of the safety of the citizens of the state. This Section is intended to present the state fire marshal with a means by which he shall provide workers’ compensation coverage to volunteer members of fire companies. The remedies provided herein shall constitute the exclusive remedy of the volunteer member against the fire company as provided in R.S. 23:1032.

      .La. R.S. 23:1032(A)(1)(a) provides:
      A. (l)(a) Except for intentional acts provided for in Subsection B, the rights and remedies herein granted to an employee or his dependent on account of an injury, or compensable sickness or disease for which he is entitled to compensation under this Chapter, shall be exclusive of all other rights, remedies, and claims for damages, including but not limited to punitive or exemplary damages, unless such rights, remedies, and damages are created by a statute, whether now existing or created in the future, expressly establishing same as available to such employee, his personal representatives, dependents, or relations, as against his employer, or any principal or any officer, director, stockholder, partner, or employee of such employer or principal, for said injury, or compensable sickness or disease.

      . The parties have not directed us to any legislative history, nor have we found any, to convince us that the legislature specifically intended to include fellow volunteer members of the fire company within the law’s grant of immunity from tort liability as "employees” of the fire company. The minutes of the committee meetings for the relevant acts do not reveal any discussion of immunity for fellow volunteer firemen.

      . La. R.S. 37:1735, entitled “Immunity from liability for volunteer firemen/' provides as follows:

        A. Any volunteer fireman who renders emergency or rescue services while in the performance of his duties at the scene of an emergency shall not be individually liable for civil damages as a result of acts or omissions in rendering the emergency or rescue services. The immunity provided herein shall apply to all acts or omissions except those intentionally designed to harm or those grossly negligent acts or omissions that result in harm to person or property.
      B. As used in this Section "volunteer fireman” means any person who is a member of an organized volunteer fire department and who acts according to his duties as a fire fighter.