BOARD OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION FOR THE COUNTY OF PALM BEACH AND SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NUMBER FOUR OF PALM BEACH COUNTY
v.
STATE
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 resolved whether refunding bonds issued by a special tax school district must comply with constitutional restrictions applicable to original bonds or whether they are governed by more permissive constitutional provisions for refunding bonds. The Court held that refunding bonds are governed by the 1930 amendment allowing their issuance without voter approval, not the stricter requirements for original bonds.
Refunding bonds are governed by Section Six of Article Nine of the Constitution, not by the more restrictive requirements of Section Seventeen of Article Twelve. The 1930 amendment adding the refunding bond provision to Section Six of Article Nine was the last expression of the people on the question of refunding bonds and superseded the earlier restrictions in Section Seventeen of Article Twelve.
“the Chancellor was in error”
The Court rejected the trial court's interpretation that the older constitutional provision applied to refunding bonds
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn May 1937, the Board of Public Instruction on behalf of Special Tax School District No. 4 of Palm Beach County filed a petition in Circuit Court to …
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 Refunding Bonds cases and more on FLexlaw
In May, 1937, the Board of Public Instruction on behalf of Special Tax School District No. 4 of Palm Beach County filed its petition in the Circuit Court to validate refunding bonds of said district to take the place of other bonds outstanding and in default. Requisite service was made and the State Attorney filed an answer offering no resistance to the petition and stating that he knew no reason why the bonds should not be validated. The matter came on to be heard before the Circuit Court who entered his decree holding the refunding bonds invalid and dismissing the petition. The Board 'of Public Instruction and Special Tax District No. 4 appealed.
The question for determination is 'whether refunding bonds proposed to be issued under the circumstances here related should conform to the requirements of Section Seventeen of Article Twelve of the Constitution or should their issue be governed by Section Six of Article Nine of the Constitution.
So much of Section Seventeen of Article Twelve of the Constitution as is pertinent to this question provides that Special Tax School Districts may issue bonds not to exceed twenty per cent, of the assessed valuation in the district, *368payable within thirty years in annual installments, payment to commence in not more than three years after date of issue and each annual installment to be not less than three per cent, of the total amount issued.
The pertinent part of Section Six of Article Nine of the Constitution requires that all bonds of Counties, Districts, or Municipalities shall be issued by an approving vote of a majority-of the qualified freeholders'except refunding bonds issued for the purpose of liquidating bonds outstanding with interest thereon. As to these, an approving vote of the freeholders is not required.
The Chancellor took the position that the refunding bonds in question being those of a special tax school district, they were controlled by Section Seventeen of Article TweLve of the Constitution and should be issued in conformity with the requirements thereof here quoted. Appellants contend that the Chancellor was in error.
The pertinent part of Section Six of Article Nine was an amendment adopted in 1930 and was written into the Constitution for the purpose of placing restrictions on the issue of original bonds and permit the issue of refunding bonds on terms more easily carried. This Court has taken the position that this amendment was the last expression of the people on the question of refunding bonds and as to such, superseded Section Seventeen of Article Twelve. SuLlivan v. City of Tampa, 101 Fla. 298, 134 So. 211; State v. City of Orlando, 126 Fla. 251, 170 So. 887; State v. Citrus County, 116 Fla, 676, 157 Sq. 4; State v. Special Tax School District No. 5, Dade County, 107 Fla. 93, 144 So. 356; State v. Special Tax School District No. 14, Dade County, 119 Fla. 352, 161 So. 410.
Section Seventeen of Article Twelve was adopted in 1924 when conditions in the State were quite different from what' they were in 1930 when the refunding provision was added *369to Section Six of Article Nine. To have carried the restrictive provisions in the refunding bonds that were required in the original ones would have amounted to a denial of the power to refund in many cases and would have very much hampered others.
It follows that the judgment below must be and is hereby reversed.
Reversed.
■Whitfield, Brown, Buford and Chapman, J. J., concur.
Ellis, C. J., dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. City of Pompano, 136 Fla. 730 (Fla. 1938)…o. 356; Williams v. Town of Dunnellon, 125 Fla. 114, 169 So. 631; State v. Calhoun County, 125 Fla. 263, 169 So. 673; State v. Calhoun County, 126 Fla. 376, 170 So. 883; Broward C. P. A. v. State, 129 Fla. 73, 175 So. 796; Board Pub. Inst. v. State, 130 Fla. 366, 177 So. 615. See also Secs. 11 and 17, Art. XII Florida Constitution; State v. L’Engle, 40 Fla. 392, 24 So. 539; Brown v. City of Lakeland, 61 Fla. 508, 54 So. 716. Chapter 13324, Acts of 1927, in effect continued the municipality of “Town of Pomp…
-
Lee v. Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co., 141 Fla. 545 (Fla. 1940)…estion No. 7 stated by appellant was involved and considered by us in the recent case of State v. Special Tax School District No. 7-B of Santa Rosa County, 131 Fla. 603, 179 Sou. 683; and in Board of Public Instruction of Palm Beach County v. State, 130 Fla. 366, 177 Sou. 615. It is unnecessary for us to say more than was said in those cases, except to add that the question of contract is not involved. It may be that a change in the bond contract has been effectuated which inures to the benefit of the bond…
-
State v. City of Arcadia, 137 Fla. 146 (Fla. 1939)…15772, Acts of 1931. The latter Acts authorize assessments sufficient to pay interest and sinking fund on all refunding bonds and such procedure has been repeatedly approved by this Court. Board of Public Instruction for Palm Beach County v. State, 130 Fla. 366, 177 So. 615; State v. Special Tax School District No. 7-B, Santa Rosa County, 131 Fla. 603, 179 So. 683; State v. Special Tax [*148] School District, No. 5, of Dade County, 107 Fla. 93, 144 So. 356, and others. It is perfectly competent for the Leg…
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
- Sullivan v. City of Tampa, 134 So. 211 (Fla. 1931)
- State v. Cnty. of Citrus, 116 Fla. 676 (Fla. 1934)
- State v. Special Tax Sch. Dist. No. 5 of Dade Cnty., 107 Fla. 93 (Fla. 1932)
- State v. City of Orlando, 126 Fla. 251 (Fla. 1936)
- State v. Special Tax Sch. Dist. No. 14, 119 Fla. 352 (Fla. 1935)