STATE
v.
TOWN OF GULFPORT AND PASADENA GOLF COURSE, INC.
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 Town of Gulfport sought validation of refunding bonds and certificates of indebtedness issued pursuant to a bankruptcy reorganization plan. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the validation decree, holding that homesteads in the town remain subject to taxation for refunding obligations replacing pre-constitutional amendment bonds, and that the town may collect such taxes through its ordinary tax collection procedures.
The court held that homesteads remain subject to taxation for refunding bonds and certificates issued to replace pre-amendment obligations, and that the town may collect debt service taxes through its ordinary tax collection procedures at the same time as other municipal taxes.
“The first question urged is whether or not homesteads in the Town of Gulfport are subject to taxation for the payment of refunding bonds and certificates of indebtedness issued to replace bonds and interest which matured prior to the adoption of the amendment to the Constitution exempting homesteads from all forms of taxation.”
States the primary legal issue regarding homestead exemption applicability to refunding obligations
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Town of Gulfport, created in 1915, had issued bonds totaling $1,034,153.81 for municipal purposes, with significant past-due principal and interes…
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 Homestead Exemption cases and more on FLexlaw
The town of Gulfport in Pinellas County was created by Chapter 7166, Acts of 1915, Laws of Florida, and at various times, issued bonds for municipal purposes aggregating $1,034,153.81, on which is now past due a large amount of principal and interest. Being unable to meet its obligations on these bonds, the Town filed its petition in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida and was on the 30th day of January, 1939, adjudicated a bankrupt in proceedings similar to those detailed in State v. City of Sebring filed this date.
*506The Town then adopted a resolution to perfect the refunding plan as proposed in the bankruptcy proceedings and filed its petition in the Circuit Court to validate refunding bonds' and non-interest-bearing certificates of indebtedness which it proposed to issue to carry out the refunding plan. A final decree of validation was entered and the present appeal is from that decree.
The first question urged is whether or not homesteads in the Town of Gulfport are subject to taxation for the payment of refunding bonds and cex-tificates of indebtedness issued to replace bonds' and interest which matured prior to the adoption of the amendment to the Constitution exexnpting homesteads from all forms of taxation.
This question has been so xnany tixnes answered in the affirmative by this Court that we are constrained to say that it will not be ground for contempt but it will be silly to raise it after this opixiion is' filed.
The second question urged is whether or not the Town may covenant to collect the taxes levied for the payment of the refunding bonds and certificates of indebtedness in the same manner and at the same time that other taxes are collected and that it will not collect the debt service portion at any other time than at the tixne of the collection of the taxes for other operating expenses.
This question was determined by this Court contrax-y to the contention of appellant in State v. City of Orlando, 126 Fla. 251, 170 So. 887. Fux-ther discussion of it is not x-equix-ed.
The other questions raised have been examined but they too have been settled by this Court contrary to the contention of appellants in State v. City of Sanford, 128 Fla. 171, 174 So. 339; State v. City of Clearwater, 125 Fla. 73, 169 So. 602; Humphreys v. State, 108 Fla. 92, 145 So. 862; State v. City of St. Petersburg, 106 Fla. 742, 144 So. 313; *507City of Winter Haven v. A. M. Klemm & Son, 132 Fla. 334, 181 So. 153.
Examination of the record discloses no reversible error; not only that but it is shown that the refunding agreement was very favorable to appellee in that it effected a saving of approximately 50 per cent of its bonded indebtedness. State v. City of Sebring, filed this date.
Affirmed.
Buford and Thomas, J. J., concur.
Wi-iitfield, P. J., concurs in opinion and judgment.
Justices Brown and Chapman not participating as authorized by Section 4687, Compiled General Laws of 1927, and Rule 21-A of the Rules of this Court.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. City of Clermont, 143 Fla. 434 (Fla. 1940)…is question is found in the case of State v. City of Tarpon Springs, 138 Fla. 649, 190 So. 19. See Folks v. County of Marion, 121 Fla. 17, 163 So. 298, 102 A. L. R. 659; State v. City of Sanford, 128 Fla. 171, 174 So. 339; State v. Town of Gulfport, 138 Fla. 505, 189 So. 703. It is next contended that an election for the authorization of the refunding bonds and delinquent tax notes was required by Section 6 of Article IX of the Constitution of Florida adopted by the voters of Florida at an election' held N…
Authorities Cited
- Humphreys v. State, 108 Fla. 92 (Fla. 1933)
- The City of Winter Haven v. A. M. Klemm & Son, 132 Fla. 334 (Fla. 1938)
- State v. City of Clearwater, 125 Fla. 73 (Fla. 1936)
- State v. The City of St. Petersburg, 106 Fla. 742 (Fla. 1933)
- State v. City of Orlando, 126 Fla. 251 (Fla. 1936)
- State v. City of Sanford, 128 Fla. 171 (Fla. 1937)
- Mrs. Hortense J. Reese v. Schenck, 107 Fla. 166 (Fla. 1932)