BRUCE CHAMBERS, APPELLANT,
v.
CITY OF PORT ST. LUCIE, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's validation of the City of Port St. Lucie's 1994B Special Assessment Bonds and Assessments totaling up to $25,900,000 for water and sewer utility expansion. The appellant challenged the validation on multiple grounds, including claims that the enabling ordinance was void, the City failed to comply with discovery and sunshine law requirements, and the trial court's judgment lacked evidentiary support, but the court rejected all arguments.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's judgment validating the 1994B Bonds and Assessments, finding that the City acted within its authority and complied with all legal requirements for issuing the bonds. The court rejected all of the appellant's contentions and found no basis for invalidating the bond issue.
[1] A city has the authority to issue special assessment bonds to finance the expansion of utility lines into designated special assessment districts.
[2] A trial court's validation of special assessment bonds and assessments will be affirmed if the city acted within its authority and complied with all legal requirements.
Previewing 2 of 6 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Based upon our review of the validation proceedings, we find that the City acted within its authority and complied with all the requirements of the law in issuing the instant bonds.”
The court's core holding that the City satisfied all legal requirements for bond issuance and that the trial court judgment was proper.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe City of Port St. Lucie sought validation of special assessment bonds not to exceed $25,900,000 to finance expansion of water and sewer utility lin…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Special Assessments cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We have on appeal a final judgment validating the City of Port St. Lucie’s 1994B Bonds and 1994B Assessments. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(2), Fla. Const. We affirm the trial court’s judgment validating the bonds and assessments.
The City of Port St. Lucie (City) sought validation of special assessment bonds in an amount not to exceed $25,900,000 to finance the expansion of water and sewer utility lines into areas of the City designated as Special Assessment District No. 1, Phase II. This Court affirmed the trial court’s validation of Phase I. Murphy v. City of Port St. Lucie, 666 So. 2d 879 (Fla.1995).
The City filed a complaint in the circuit court for validation of the Special Assessment Bonds, Series 1994B. After a hearing, the trial court found that all the requirements of law with respect to the issuance of the 1994B Bonds and the levy and collection of the 1994B Assessments had been satisfied. Consequently, the court validated the 1994B Bonds and the 1994B Assessments.
In this appeal, appellant Bruce Chambers contends that the judgment validating the 1994B Bonds should be reversed and that the final judgment validating the Series 1994B Special Assessments and the Series 1994B Bonds is not supported by competent, substantial evidence. He also argues that the City does not have the authority to issue the 1994B Bonds and Assessments because: (1) the enabling ordinance is void in that it was only published and considered by the Port St. Lucie City Council on one occasion; (2) the City failed to answer three written interrogatories; (3) the bond validation hearing was improper because of the trial judge’s demeanor and attitude; and (4) the City failed to comply with chapter 286, Florida Statutes (1995), and the Sunshine Law with respect to public business regarding the bonds and assessments. We disagree.
Based upon our review of the validation proceedings, we find that the City acted within its authority and complied with all the requirements of the law in issuing the instant bonds. We find no basis in the points raised by appellant in this appeal for invalidating the bond issue. In conformity with our decision in Murphy concerning Phase I, we affirm the court’s final judgment validating the bonds and the assessments for Phase II.
It is so ordered.
KOGAN, C.J., and OVERTON, SHAW, GRIMES, HARDING, WELLS and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Provenzano v. Moore, 744 So. 2d 413 (Fla. 1999)…Remeta v. State, 710 So. 2d 543, 546 (Fla.), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1055, 118 S.Ct. 1383, 140 L.Ed.2d 526 (1998); Jones v. State, 701 So. 2d 76, 80 (Fla.1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1014, 118 S.Ct. 1297, 140 L.Ed.2d 335 (1998); Stano v. Singletary, 692 So. 2d 180, 181 (Fla.1997). Such challenges consume an inordinate amount of the time and resources expended by inmates’ counsel, State counsel, and judicial personnel. Furthermore, each time an execution is carried out, the courts wait in dread anticipation of…
-
Provenzano v. State, 739 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1999)…opez v. Singletary, 719 So. 2d 287 (Fla.1998) (order), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 119 S.Ct. 892, 142 L.Ed.2d 790 (1999); Remeta v. Singletary, 717 So. 2d 536 (Fla.1998) (order); Buenoano v. State, 717 So. 2d 529 (Fla.1998) (order); Stano v. Singletary, 692 So. 2d 180 (Fla.1997); Jones, 701 So. 2d at 80. As to the claim concerning work performed on the electric chair since the most recent executions, we affirm the circuit court’s decision that there is an insufficient basis alleged to overcome the presumption tha…
-
Davis v. State, 742 So. 2d 233 (Fla. 1999)…related claim of death row inmate Eduardo Lopez. See Lopez v. Singletary, 719 So. 2d 287 (Fla.1998). (order); Remeta v. Singletary, 717 So. 2d 536 (Fla.1998) (order); Buenoano v. State, [*236] 717 So. 2d 529 (Fla.1998) (order); Stano v. Singletary, 692 So. 2d 180 (Fla.1997); Jones, 701 So. 2d at 80. As to the claim concerning work performed on the electric chair since the most recent executions, we affirm the circuit court’s decision that there is an insufficient basis alleged to overcome the presumption tha…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Murphy v. City OF Port ST. Lucie, 666 So. 2d 879 (Fla. 1995)