BELLE V. FOLLANSBEE, A WIDOW, ET AL.,
v.
CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE
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 a class suit challenging the City of Fort Lauderdale's method of paying for water revenue certificates through special assessments. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the city's actions, finding they complied with the city charter.
Yes, the City of Fort Lauderdale can lawfully use special assessments to pay for the water revenue certificates because its city charter expressly authorizes this method of payment, and the city appears to be complying with its charter provisions.
“It appears that its charter Chapter 10552, Special Acts of 1925, authorized this.”
Establishes the legal basis for the city's actions.
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 Fort Lauderdale issued water revenue certificates to enlarge its sewer system and refund outstanding indebtedness. These certificates 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 Municipal Finance cases and more on FLexlaw
This is a class suit brought by appellant against the City of Fort Lauderdale to restrain it from collecting special assessments to pay water revenue certificates imposed by Ordinance of the City dated April 17, 1940, and to require payment of all sums previously paid thereon. It is not contended that the water revenue certificates are invalid but it is contended that they cannot be paid by special assessments. City of St. Cloud v. Carlson, 78 Fla. 131, 83 So. 616; Clover Leaf Inc. v. City of Jacksonville, 145 Fla. 341, 199 So. 923, and City of Miami Beach v. Tenny, 150 Fla. 241, 7 So. (2nd) 136 are relied on.
The point in these cases was that a city could not adopt a definite method to redeem a bond issue or to pay for a municipal improvement and then shift the method of payment to a special assessment. In the case at bar, the City had an outstanding indebtedness and was confronted with the necessity of enlarging its sewer system. It undertook to refund its outstanding indebtedness and enlarge its sewer system with water revenue certificates payable in part from special assessments and from the net revenues of its water system. It appears that its charter Chapter 10552, Special Acts of 1925, authorized this.
It affirmatively appears that the provisions of the city charter were being complied with. Rowe v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 142 Fla. 746, 196 So. 199. We find no reversible error so the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
CHAPMAN, C. J., BUFORD and ADAMS, JJ., concur.
BROWN, THOMAS and SEBRING, JJ., dissent.
A rehearing having been granted in this cause and the case having been further considered upon the record and upon briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties; it *370is thereupon ordered and adjudged by the Court' that the judgment of the Circuit Court in this' cause be and it is hereby reaffirmed and adhered to on rehearing.
Affirmed.
CHAPMAN, C. J. TERRELL, BUFORD and ADAMS, JJ., concur.
BROWN, THOMAS and SEBRING, JJ., dissent.
PER CURIAM:
A rehearing having been granted in this cause and the case having been further considered upon the record and upon briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties; it is thereupon ordered and adjudged by the Court' that the judgment of the Circuit Court in this' cause be and it is hereby reaffirmed and adhered to on rehearing.
Affirmed.
CHAPMAN, C. J. TERRELL, BUFORD and ADAMS, JJ., concur. BROWN, THOMAS and SEBRING, JJ., dissent.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
City of Orlando v. State, 67 So. 2d 673 (Fla. 1953)…the taxing power of the city pledged for their payment.” Similarly, a decree approving water revenue certificates payable from special benefit assessments, and from water revenues, was affirmed by this Court in Follansbee v. City of Ft. Lauderdale, 156 Fla. 368, 22 So. 2d 815. We think these later cases take care of any uncertainty that might have been present in the mind of the trial judge by reason of the language used in Spearman Brewing Company v. City of Pensacola, 136 Fla. 869, 187 So. 365, or Clove…
-
GAY v. City OF Winter Park, 82 So. 2d 139 (Fla. 1955)…the case, disposes of appellants’ argument upon this point, we shall at this juncture examine the [*142] St. Cloud case and the succeeding cases of City of Miami Beach v. Tenney, 150 Fla. 241, 7 So. 2d 136, and Follansbee v. City of Ft. Lauderdale, 156 Fla. 368, 22 So. 2d 815, also relied upon by appellants. In both.the St. Cloud and Miami Beach cases, the general credit of the municipality had been pledged, after a vote of the freeholders, for the issuance of bonds to finance a specific and distinct munic…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- City of Miami Beach v. Tenney, 150 Fla. 241 (Fla. 1942)
- City of St. Cloud & Levi Shambow v. Carlson, 78 Fla. 131 (Fla. 1919)
- Clover Leaf, Inc. v. City of Jacksonville, 145 Fla. 341 (Fla. 1940)
- Rowe v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 142 Fla. 746 (Fla. 1940)