City of Fort Myers v. State
| Decision Date | 03 June 1937 |
| Citation | 129 Fla. 166,176 So. 483 |
| Parties | CITY OF FORT MYERS v. STATE (ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO., Intervener). |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
On Rehearing Oct. 28, 1937.
En Banc.Suit by the City of Fort Myers to validate refunding bonds wherein the State of Florida filed its answer resisting their validation, and wherein the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company, a taxpayer, intervened and filed its motion to dismiss the validation petition. From a decree dismissing the petition, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
On Petition for Rehearing. Appeal from Circuit Court, Lee County; George W. Whitehurst, judge.
Allen Clements, of Fort Myers, F. P. Fleming, of Jacksonville, and David M. Wood, of New York City, for appellant.
Henderson & Franklin and Parker Holt, all of Fort Myers, for appellees.
In January, 1937, the City of Fort Myers filed its petition in the circuit court to validate refunding bonds in the sum of $3,008,000, payable in thirty years, redeemable at any interest payment date at par with accrued interest. Said refunding bonds were to be substituted for bonds outstanding in the sum of $2,730,862.31, and to fund judgments aggregating $279,728.82, predicated on outstanding bonds.
Notice and order to show cause why the refunding bonds should not be validated was given. The State of Florida filed its answer resisting their validation because of insufficiencies in the petition and the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company, a corporation and taxpayer intervened and filed its motion to dismiss the validation petition and in due course filed its answer. Testimony was taken and on final hearing the prayer to validate was denied and the cause was dismissed on the motion of the intervener. From that final decree, the instant appeal was prosecuted.
The first question with which we are confronted is whether or not a creditor or taxpayer of a municipality may successfully resist the validation of refunding bonds on the ground that the boundaries of the municipality were materially reduced by legislative act after the original bonds were issued, and it is proposed to impose the refunding bonds on the municipality as reduced.
This question is raised by the answer of the intervener, where in substance it alleges that when the major portion of the original bonds were issued, the City of Fort Myers embraced a great deal of territory which was not embraced therein when it was proposed to issue the refunding bonds. The intervener is a taxpayer, but is not a bondholder or creditor of the city. No bondholder is here complaining, but a taxpayer adversely affected can raise the question.
As a general proposition, the Legislature has plenary power under section 8 of article 8 of the Constitution to enlarge or contract the boundaries of a municipality and impose reasonable regulations and restrictions as to taxes and other charges on the territory affected. This power is subject to the exception that contract rights cannot be adversely affected by such changes which are at all times subject to judicial review. If contracting the boundaries of a municipality adversely affects the obligations of contracts previously consummated by imposing a heavier or different burden on those affected, it will not be permitted to stand as to such contracts.
The second question with which we are confronted is whether or not a vote of the freeholders will be required to approve the refunding bonds brought in question, the original bonds having been secured by a limited tax prescribed in the city charter, while it is proposed to support the refunding bonds with an unlimited tax, the charter having been changed.
The record discloses that approximately 90 per cent. of the bonds which are proposed to be refunded were issued under chapter 5496, Acts 1905, and chapters 10563 and 10564, Sp. Acts 1925 being the city charter of Fort Myers, both having a tax limit of 8 mills on the dollar for bonds and other purposes, while in chapter 11855, Acts 1927, and chapter 12743, Sp.Acts 1927 under which it is proposed to issue the refunding bonds, the tax limitation as provided in the old charter is removed and such bonds may be issued and supported by a tax bounded only by the discretion of the city.
Section 6 of article 9 of the Constitution provides that municipalities may issue bonds only after an approving vote of the freeholders at an election in which a majority of them participate. Such a vote is not required to issue refunding bonds or to pay the interest thereon. A refunding bond contemplates nothing more than an extension of the original obligation under like terms. If it in any way adds to, increases, makes more attractive, or enhances the obligation of the contract in a way not embraced in the original bond, it will be held in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. City of Fort Myers
...prior to the effective date of Chapter 10891, Special Acts of 1925, were issued by an approving vote of the freeholders, while in the Fort Myers case, it did not appear that the bonds were so issued.' In that case we also appeared to give effect to the provisions of Chapter 18532, Acts of 1......
-
Mutual Loan & Savings Co. v. Commissioner of Int. Rev.
...constitute valid obligations of the petitioner, * * *." 11 U.S.C.A. § 403, sub. f. 4 State v. Citrus County, supra; City of Fort Myers v. State, 129 Fla. 166, 176 So. 483; Fahs v. Kilgore, 136 Fla. 701, 187 So. 170; Outman v. Cone, 141 Fla. 196, 192 So. 611; Taylor v. Williams, 142 Fla. 402......
-
State v. Haines City
... ... municipality ... The ... difference between the factual conditions in this case and ... those apparent in the case of City of Fort Myers v ... State, 129 Fla. 166, 176 So. 483, is readily apparent ... Here the legislative Acts validated and confirmed what had ... been done ... ...
- State Ex Rel. Woman's Catholic Order of Foresters v. City of Fort Myers