Brandon v. Pinellas County
| Decision Date | 18 May 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 2519,2519 |
| Citation | 141 So.2d 278 |
| Parties | N. C. BRANDON, William Mattler, John B. Immel, Val Gottschling, and D. H. Colville, Appellants, v. COUNTY OF PINELLAS, Florida, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
C. I. Carey of Carey & Harrison, St. Petersburg, for appellants.
J. D. Hobbs, Jr., of Cramer & Hobbs, St. Petersburg, for appellee.
This appeal was initially taken to the Supreme Court but after hearing, that court determined that it was without jurisdiction and, pursuant to Florida Appellate Rule 2.1, subd. a(5)(d), 31 F.S.A., transferred the cause to this court. Brandon v. Pinellas County, Florida, Fla.Sup.1961, 128 So.2d 605.
The appellants, as plaintiffs, filed their complaint against Pinellas County, alleging, in effect, that the County was the owner of property lying near the entrance to Tampa Bay from the Gulf of Mexico in the County that was vacant and undeveloped that the County adopted a resolution initiating the procedure which ultimately resulted in the issuance and validation of $16,800,000.00 worth of 'Bayway' bonds; that the bonds were issued by the Florida Development Commission; that the funds were to be used in building and extending the public road system of the state; that in its initial resolution the County requested the Development Commission to offer the bonds for sale simultaneously with, and conditioned upon the sale by the County of Mullet Key Development bonds; that the County abandoned the declared plan for issuing the Mullet Key Development bonds, which were essential pre-requisites of the issuing of the Bayway bonds, and as a substitute for the Mullet Key Development bonds, the County entered into a contract with Terra Verde Corporation for the issuance by the County, and the purchase by that private corporation, of revenue certificates to provide the County with the first essential items for the development of the County-owned lands, which was named Fort DeSoto Park; that the County also entered into a second contract pertaining to the supplying of water to Fort DeSoto Park and to the private corporation's lands, which was an unlawful grant of an exclusive water franchise to the private corporation; and, that this contract set up a plan to serve the interest of a private corporation by the use of public credit and tax resources of the County. The complaint then concludes that both of the contracts were a scheme and plan to make available County resources to develop large property values for the corporation and that the second contract was, in effect, a private franchise for the benefit and protection of the corporation and that all of the same was contrary to the Statutes and Constitution of Florida. The complaint attached copies of the two contracts. The County moved to dismiss, and the Court entered a comprehensive order in which the Court found, in effect, that the decree which validated the Bayway bonds expressly determined that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ginsberg v. Lennar Florida Holdings, Inc.
...of the pleader, as to the meaning of the exhibits attached to the complaint, are not binding on the court. See N.C. Brandon v. County of Pinellas, 141 So.2d 278 (Fla.1962). Exhibits attached to the complaint are controlling, where the allegations of the complaint are contradicted by the exh......
-
Lost Tree Village Corp. v. City of Vero Beach
......Fla. L.Rev. 635, 683 (1973). See also Anhoco Corp. v. Dade County, 144 So.2d 793, 797 (Fla.1962) (holding multiple governmental units engaged in a cooperative ...King Motor Co. of Fort Lauderdale, 782 So.2d 489, 495 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) ); see also Brandon v. Pinellas County, 141 So.2d 278, 279 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962) (noting mere opinions or conclusions ......
-
Varnes v. Dawkins, 92-1542
...taken as true. Connolly v. Sebeco, supra; Cook v. Sheriff of Collier County, 573 So.2d 406 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Brandon v. County of Pinellas, 141 So.2d 278 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962). Taking as true the factual allegations of appellant's complaint, the complaint does, indeed, state a cause of actio......
-
Dr. Navarro's Vein Centre v. Miller
...factual allegations and decide the legal issue of whether the complaint sounds in simple or medical negligence. Brandon v. Pinellas County, 141 So.2d 278, 279 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962) ("Mere statements of opinions or conclusions unsupported by specific facts will not suffice."). Under chapter 766......