STATE
v.
CITY OF CORAL GABLES
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.
This case concerns the validation of municipal bonds issued by the City of Coral Gables to refund its indebtedness. The court affirmed the decree validating the bonds, finding that the city had followed the statutory and constitutional requirements for issuing such bonds, including holding a required election.
Yes, the City of Coral Gables had the authority to issue the refunding bonds and corporate stock. The court found that the election held met the requirements of the Constitution and the statute, thereby authorizing the issuance of the bonds and corporate stock.
“municipalities of this State shall have power to issue bonds only after the same shall have been approved by a majority of the votes cast in an election in which a majority of the freeholders who are qualified electors' residing in such * * * municipalities shall participate, to be held in the .manner to be prescribed by law; but the provisions of this Act shall not apply to refunding bonds issued exclusively for the purpose of refunding the bonds or the interest thereon of such * * * municipalities.”
This quote from the Constitution outlines the requirements for issuing municipal bonds, specifically distinguishing between refunding existing bonds/interest and refunding other indebtedness.
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 Coral Gables sought to validate municipal bonds to refund its bonded and other indebtedness under Chapter 15132, Acts of 1931. An election…
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 Municipal Bond Validation cases and more on FLexlaw
— This appeal is from a decree validating municipal bonds.
Chapter 15132, Acts of 1931, was enacted “to authorize the refunding of the bonded and other indebtedness of the City of Coral Gables.” Section 6 of Article IX of the Constitution as amended in 1930, provides that “municipalities of this State shall have power to issue bonds only after the same shall have been approved by a majority of the votes cast in an election in which a majority of the freeholders who are qualified electors' residing in such * * * municipalities shall participate, to be held in the .manner to be prescribed by law; but the provisions of this Act shall not apply to refunding bonds issued exclusively for the purpose of refunding the bonds or the interest thereon of such * * * municipalities.” Chapter 15132 authorizes the refunding of the bonded and other indebtedness of the City of Coral Gables. Bonds to refund “bonds or the interest thereon,” may be issued by the city without an election when so duly authorized by statute. But bonds to refund “other indebtedness” of the city, not included in “bonds or the *348interest thereon,” can legally be issued only after they have been approved by the required vote of the freeholder electors residing in the city, as stated in amended Section 6, Article IX of the Constitution. Chapter 15132 required the bonds to be issued under its provisions to be approved “by a majority of the votes cast in an election by the qualified electors who are freeholders of the City of Coral Gables, in which election a majority of the freeholders who are qualified electors', residing in such city shall participate.”
It appears that an election was held April 12, 1932, and
“1. That 401 freeholder voters were qualified to vote at said election.
“2. That a total number of 354 ballots were cast.
“3. ■ That on the question of adoption of proposal as follows: ‘Shall the indebtedness of the City of Coral Gables be settled and refunded by the issuance of Refunding Bonds in the amount of Four Million Dollars ($4,000,000.00) and corporate stock to represent the balance of said existing indebtedness' pursuant to Ordinance No. 174 * * 329 votes were cast For the proposal; 23 votes were 'cast Against the proposal.”
The record thus shows that an election was held as required by the Act, and that the issue of all the bonds or corporate stock authorized by the Act was approved as required by law; therefore there is organic and statutory authority for issuing all the bonds and corporate stock if no. illegality in the statute or proceedings be shown which may render the bonds or the corporate stock or any of them unlawful.
Chapter 15132 does not purport to require holders of bonds of the City to accept refunding bonds or corporate stock in exchange for outstanding bonds or coupons, and no *349such bondholder is a party to this suit so as to bind present bondholders by any decree rendered in this- cause.
The statute authorizes the city authorities to enter into refunding agreements with holders of bonds of the city and to issue refunding bonds and corporate stock in exchange for bonds or coupons or other evidences of indebtedness outstanding against the city that may by agreement be refunded as authorized by the statute.
Holders of bonds and coupons or other indebtedness of the City have their legal rights unaffected by the' statute. No provision of the statute can affect the rights of creditors of the city without their consent, consequently the statute does not impair the obligation of any contract with its creditors. If paragraphs (c) and (g) of Section 4 of Chapter 15132 are otherwise valid, they cannot legally be made to so operate as to impair the obligation of the city’s contract with its bondholders or other creditors.
Bonds in excess of $4,000,000.00 and corporate stock in excess of the balance of the city’s total indebtedness cannot be issued. The refunding bonds and the corporate stock that may legally be issued can be used as authorized by the statute for refunding the bonded and other debts of the city as may be agreed by the city and its creditors within the provisions and limitations of the statute.
Bonds and other debts of the city not so refunded by agreement, maintain their statu quo, so there can be no impairment of contract rights in violation of organic law.
The constitution and the statute required the approving election to be by the proper electors residing in the city. Whether any territory is illegally embraced within the city limits cannot be determined in this proceeding.
The statute and the approving election held thereunder authorize the issue of the Class B bonds or corporate stock *350and the use of them by agreement as evidences of outstanding indebtedness of the city; and such Class B bonds or corporate stock appear to be of such a nature and for such a purpose as to authorize proceedings under the statute for their validation. If Class A bonds required an approving vote of the freeholder qualified electors, that has bqen obtained. No invalidity in the statute or in the proceedings thereunder affecting the issue of the bonds and corporate stock referred to in the statute has been made to appear by the contentions made on behalf of the State; and minor irregularities, if any, in the proceedings are not material on the record as' made. Future action taken under the statute will be subject to judicial review in due course of law.
Validating decree affirmed.
Davis, C. J., and Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Cnty. of Citrus, 116 Fla. 676 (Fla. 1934)…hursby, 112 Fla. 826, 151 Sou. Rep. 385; State v. City of Miami, 113 Fla. 280, 152 Sou. Rep. 6; City of Daytona Beach v. State, 101 Fla. 560, 132 Sou. Rep. 490; Masters v. Duval County, 114 Fla. 205, 154 Sou. Rep. 172; State v. City of Coral Gables, 114 Fla. 326, 154 Sou. Rep. 234; State ex rel. Pinellas County v. Sholtz, 115 Fla. 561, 155 Sou. Rep. 736; State v. Ocean Shore Imp. District, 116 Fla. 284, 156 Sou. Rep. 433; County of Bay v. State, 116 Fla. 656, 157 Sou. Rep. 1; State v. City of Miami, 116 Fla…1 / 2
-
State v. The City OF Miami, 103 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 1958)…not contemplate that collateral matters shall be adjudicated in validating bonds. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co. v. City of Lakeland, 130 Fla. 72, 177 So. 206; State v. County of Sarasota, 118 Fla. 629, 159 So. 797; State v. City of Coral Gables, 114 Fla. 326, 154 So. 234; State v. City of Miami, 116 Fla. 517, 157 So. 13; State v. Dade County, Fla.1954, 70 So. 2d 837; State v. City of Daytona Beach, 118 Fla. 29, 158 So. 300; Haines City v. Certain Lands, 130 Fla. 379, 178 So. 143. In State v. City of Mi…1 / 2
-
State v. City of Miami, 116 Fla. 517 (Fla. 1934)…s of arriving at that amount. “That is certain which may be rendered certain.” This is sufficient for all practical purposes and also a sufficient compliance with Section 5107, Compiled General Laws of 1927. See [*526] State v. City of Coral Gables, 154 So. 234; Getzen v. Sumter County, 89 Fla. 45, 103 So. 104. We find no error in the record, and the order and decree appealed from are accordingly affirmed. Davis, C. J., and Wi-iitfield, Ellis, Terrell, and Buford, J. J., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence