STATE
v.
CITY OF AUBURNDALE
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 involves an appeal challenging the validation of refunding bonds issued by the City of Auburndale. The court affirmed the validation, finding no merit in the appellant's constitutional objections regarding taxation, territorial limits, and bond classifications.
The court held that the refunding bonds did not violate the Constitution. It found that amendments to the city charter allowed for unlimited taxes to service all bonds, that the city could contract to tax excluded lands, and that the classification of bonds was permissible as it maintained the original tax liability.
“There is no merit to this contention. It is true that $38,010.00 of the original bonds were issued when the City charter provided for a limited tax to support them but the charter was later amended so as to service all bonds by an unlimited tax regardless of when issued.”
This quote establishes the court's reasoning for rejecting the argument that refunding bonds with unlimited tax support violated constitutional provisions when original bonds had limited tax support.
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 Auburndale sought to validate refunding bonds to replace outstanding bonds with past-due interest and principal. The refunding bonds were …
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 Freeholder Approval For Bonds cases and more on FLexlaw
This appeal is from a final decree validating an issue of refunding bonds in Series A and Series B, dated April 1, 1939, aggregating $371,952.80. The refunding bonds are designed to take the place of outstanding bonds on which interest and principal are past due aggregating $1,859,764.00. The Series .B bonds in the sum of $46,937.00 are to be substituted for bonds issued under the 1914 charter of the City and the Series A bonds in the sum of $325,015.80 are to be substituted for bonds issued under the 1925 charter, the corporate limits of the City being different in both cases. The limits of the City were also contracted by judicial decree after the Series A bonds were issued. Both series were secured by special assessments in addition to ad valorem tax assessments.
It is first contended that certain of the refunding bonds *212are violative of Section 6, Article IX of the Constitution because they have not been approved by a vote of.the freeholders and are proposed under an unlimited tax while the original bonds are supported by a limited tax.
There is no merit to this contention. It is true that $38,010.00 of the original bonds were issued when the City charter provided for a limited tax to support them but the charter was later amended so as to service all bonds by an unlimited tax regardless of when issued. These were the only bonds issued supported by a limited tax and they were approved by vote of the freeholders. This Court has approved bonds so issued. State v. City of Manatee, 140 Fla. 248, 191 So. 529; State v. City of Palmetto, 140 Fla. 252, 191 So. 531.
It is next contended that some of the refunding bonds are violative of Section 6, Article IX, of the Constitution, because the territorial limits of the City were different when some of the original bonds were issued from what they were when the refunding bonds were proposed; the result being that some of the refunding bonds will be served by a larger territory than others.
This contention is also without merit because the resolution for the issuance of the refunding bonds authorizes a tax on all lands heretofore excluded from the City and guarantees that right to be exercised. The refunding bonds themselves also covenant to levy a tax on all lands excluded from the City to support them. Section 8, Article VIII, of the Constitution authorizes such a contract and this Court has approved similar ones. State v. City of Miami, 103 Fla. 54, 137 So. 261.
It is next contended that the classification of the refunding bonds into separate series and the support of each series by taxes on different territory within the limits of the City *213results in unequal taxation in violation of Sections 1 and 5, Article IX, of the Constitution.
This contention involves a statutory exemption with reference to which the resolution authorizing the refunding bonds is framed in such a way as to continue for support of the refunding bonds the identical tax liability that was provided for the service of the original bonds. A similar classification of municipal indebtedness was approved by this Court in State v. City of Clearwater, 125 Fla. 73, 169 So. 602. Equality of taxation goes only to the rate and there is no showing that this is different.
Other questions raised relate to the taxation, of homesteads contrary to Section 7, Article X, of the Constitution, the right of the City to bind itself to collect the refunding tax at the time other taxes are collected, the right of the City to accept nothing but money in payment of the taxes and the power of the City to covenant that the rights and remedies for enforcement of the refunded indebtedness will appertain to the refunding bonds and that taxes to support them regardless of limitations thereon enacted by the Legislature since the issuance of the original bonds.
These questions are answered by the following decisions of this Court: Folks v. Marion County, 121 Fla. 17, 163 So. 298; Fleming v. Turner, 122 Fla. 200, 165 So. 353; State v. City of Pensacola, 123 Fla. 331, 166 So. 851; State v. City of Clearwater, 125 Fla. 73, 169 So. 602; State v. Board of Public Instruction for Dade County, 126 Fla. 142, 170 So. 602; State v. City of Daytona Beach, 126 Fla. 728, 171 So. 814.
All questions raised have been carefully examined but found to be devoid of merit. In fact, it appears admitted by appellant that all questions raised on law and fact are settled by former adjudications of this Court.
*214Affirmed.
■ Whitfield, P. J., Buford, Chapman and Thomas, J. J., concur.
Justice Brown 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 Fort Myers, 145 Fla. 135 (Fla. 1940)…gainst these lands. This is just what was done in regard to the bonds involved in the case of State v. City of Lakeland, 132 Fla. 489, 180 Sou. 754. See also A. C. L. R. R. v. City of Lakeland, 130 Fla. 72, 177 Sou. 206; State v. City of Auburndale, 144 Fla. 210, 197 Sou. 739. This case is ruled in this regard by what is said in the Lakeland case, supra. The fifth question is just a statement of No. 2 in a different way. The covenant is to all intents and purposes like the covenants involved in the cases o…1 / 2
-
State v. City of Venice, 147 Fla. 70 (Fla. 1941)…, notwithstanding that some of s.aid lands may have subsequently been excluded therefrom. See A. C. L. R. R. Co. v. City of Lakeland, 130 Fla. 72, 177 Sou. 206, 215; State v. City of Lakeland, 132 Fla. 489, 180 Sou. 754; State v. City of Auburndale, 144 Fla. 210, 197 Sou. 139; State v. City of Fort Myers, 145 Fla. 135, 198 Sou. 414, 818; City of Winter Haven v. Klemm, 132 Fla. 334, 181 Sou. 153. The second question challenges the sufficiency of the notice to citizens and taxpayers to bring into court taxpa…
-
State v. Jensen Rd. & Bridge Dist., 144 Fla. 442 (Fla. 1940)…ppellant by the decision of this Court in State v. City of Lakeland, 132 Fla. 489, 180 So. 754; State v. City of Clearwater, 125 Fla. 73, 169 So. 602; State v. City of West Palm Beach, 127 Fla. 849, 174 So. 334. See also State v. City of Auburndale, 144 Fla. 210, 197 So. 739. In the second question it is argued that where tolls from the operation of a bridge to be constructed with the proceeds of bonds are pledged to the payment of such bonds, and thereafter removed by legislative Act, refunding bonds may…
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
- Folks v. Cnty. of Marion, 121 Fla. 17 (Fla. 1935)
- State v. The Bd. of Pub. Instruction, 126 Fla. 142 (Fla. 1936)
- State v. City of Miami, 103 Fla. 54 (Fla. 1931)
- State v. City of Clearwater, 125 Fla. 73 (Fla. 1936)
- State v. City of Palmetto, 140 Fla. 252 (Fla. 1939)
- State v. City of Pensacola, 123 Fla. 331 (Fla. 1936)
- Fleming v. Turner, 122 Fla. 200 (Fla. 1935)
- State & G. I. Ridgeway v. City of Daytona Beach, 126 Fla. 728 (Fla. 1936)
- State v. City of Manatee, 140 Fla. 248 (Fla. 1939)