STATE OF FLORIDA AND THE TAXPAYERS, PROPERTY OWNERS AND CITIZENS OF CITY OF MIAMI, INCLUDING NONRESIDENTS OWNING PROPERTY OR SUBJECT TO TAXATION THEREIN,
v.
THE CITY OF MIAMI, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
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 held that a municipality's express power to issue revenue bonds includes the implied power to refund those bonds on more favorable terms, even absent specific statutory authorization for refunding. The City of Miami was therefore authorized to refund its outstanding water revenue bonds to obtain lower interest rates.
A municipality's express power to issue revenue bonds payable from revenue necessarily includes the implied power to refund those bonds on more favorable terms. The power to refund is implied from the express power to issue, even where no specific statutory provision authorizes refunding.
“exercise only such powers as [were] granted, ... in express terms or . . . necessarily implied from those granted”
Establishes the principle that municipal powers are limited to those expressly granted or necessarily implied
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 Miami issued water revenue bonds in 1939 that were validated by the circuit court and affirmed by the Supreme Court. The bonds matured ove…
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.
Water revenue bonds of the City of Miami were issued and validated by decree of the circuit judge which was affirmed on appeal to this Court. State, et al., v. City of Miami, 146 Fla. 266, 200 So. 535. Some of the bonds were to mature in each of the years 1941 to 1969, and all those which have fallen due have been retired.
Now, to obtain the advantage of reduced interest, it is proposed to refund all bonds of the original issue remaining after payment of those maturing 1 December 1944. The circuit judge confirmed the plan, and we are asked to decide whether the city is authorized by law to substitute the new securities for the old. Stating it otherwise, did the power to issue, which we recognized and approved in the cited case, carry with it the power to refund?
It is true, as appellant urges, that the powers of municipalities are circumscribed, are limited to those granted by their creator, the legislative body. The rule was recently stated by Mr. Justice TERRELL when he said cities could “exercise only such powers as [were] granted, ... in express terms or . . . necessarily implied from those granted,” and further, any “reasonable doubt as to the existence of the power [would] be resolved against the municipality.” State ex rel. Cole v. Keller, 129 Fla. 276, 176 So. 176, 180.
While there may be no specific power in the Acts, cc. 19980 and 19982, Laws of Florida, S.P. Acts of 1939, to refund bonds once issued, it does not follow that authority to refund may not be implied from authority to issue orginally; nor is doubt *182reasonable that a municipality empowered to undertake certain obligations may renew them at a substantial saving to the people. The Supreme Court of Louisiana, after recognizing the principle we have just stated, added that although no express authority to refund could be found, it was included in the power to call and redeem an authorized issue. State ex rel. Maestri v. Cave, 193 La. 419, 190 So. 631. The two Acts cited gave the City of Miami power to “redeem such bonds, and covenant for their redemption, and to provide the terms'and conditions thereof.” Sec. 11(h), cc. 19980 and 19982, supra.
A like question was considered by the Supreme Court of Illinois, and that tribunal held that bonds payable from revenue could be supplanted by refunding bonds although there was no express provision for the latter. People ex rel. City of Rock Island v. Rudgren, 378 Ill. 408, 38 N. E. 2nd 723. Other decisions on the matter may be found in the cases cited.
We find no difficulty in holding that power expressly granted to issue bonds payable from revenue includes power to refund those bonds upon terms more favorable to the obligor-city. The conclusion is in entire harmony with our frequent expressions that refunding bonds are but a renewal and continuation of the existing debt. State v. City of Okeechobee, 99 Fla. 617, 127 So. 339; Sullivan v. City of Tampa, 101 Fla. 298, 134 So. 211.
The circuit judge was quite correct when he validated the refunding bonds, and his action is
Affirmed.
BUFORD, C. J., BROWN and SEBRING, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gate City Garage, Inc. v. City of Jacksonville, 66 So. 2d 653 (Fla. 1953)…in it by the Legislature, and such other powers as may be necessary to properly exercise or carry out the power specifically granted. City of Daytona Beach v. Dygert, 146 Fla. 352, 1 So. 2d 170; 133 A.L.R. 1237; State v. City of Miami, 155 Fla. 180, 19 So. 2d 790, 1 A.L.R.2d 132. The fountainhead and source of all municipal power or authority is the Legislature. Therefore, the first and most important consideration in this case is the validity of the statutes. Section 3 of Chapter 24611, Laws of Florida, Sp…
-
State v. Escambia Cnty., 52 So.2d 125 (Fla. 1951)…ia and the Santa Rosa Island Authority. See Chapter 24500, Special Laws of Florida 1947, as amended by Chapter 25810, Special Laws of Florida 1949, and Chapter 26422, Laws of Florida, Extraordinary Session 1949; State v. City of Miami, 155 Fla. 180, 19 So. 2d 790, 1 A.L.R.2d 132. The second question presented here is, will the Santa Rosa Island Facilities Revenue Bonds constitute a debt of the County of Escambia within the inhibitions of the provisions of Section 6 of Article 9 of the Constitution of Florid…
-
State v. City OF Orlando, 82 So. 2d 874 (Fla. 1955)…mediately with eventual loss of money. It will .advance [*876] the public welfare to better the sewerage system now and it will advantage the public treasury to incorporate the issues in one. financing plan. Cf. State v. City of Miami, 155 Fla. 180, 19 So. 2d 790, 1 A.L.R.2d 132. The testimony which the circuit judge considered and our own reasoning bring us to the conclusion that he ruled correctly when he decided that the state’s objection on this score should not be sustained. Affirmed. DREW, C. ' J., a…
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. City of Okeechobee, 99 Fla. 617 (Fla. 1930)
- State & R. C. Gardner v. City of Miami, 146 Fla. 266 (Fla. 1941)
- State v. Keller, 129 Fla. 276 (Fla. 1937)