Escott v. City of Miami

• Decision Date: 17 November 1932
• Citation: 144 So. 397,107 Fla. 273
• Court: Florida Supreme Court
• Parties: ESCOTT v. CITY OF MIAMI.

144 So. 397

107 Fla. 273

ESCOTT v. CITY OF MIAMI.

Florida Supreme Court

November 17, 1932

En Banc.

Suit by T. B. Escott against the City of Miami. From a decree dismissing the bill, plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

BROWN J., dissenting. Appeal from Circuit Court, Dade County; H. F. Atkinson, judge.

COUNSEL

Price Price & Hancock, of Miami, for appellant.

J. W Watson, Jr., Mitchell D. Price & Charles W. Zaring, and Jack R. Kirchik, all of Miami, for appellee.

OPINION

DAVIS J.

The charter of the city of Miami, Fla., is a special act of the Legislature, chapter 10847, enacted at the legislative session of 1925. Section 56 of that act authorized the city to order certain local improvements, including storm sewers. Under it also power was conferred to designate the particular property which the city commission deemed would be specially benefited by the improvements ordered, and to assess the costs of such improvements when made against property held to be specially benefited thereby, in proportion to the benefits resulting.

Appellant complained by bill in equity, filed in the court below, that liens entered against his property were invalid, because he had been given no adequate lawful notice of certain proceedings had by the city for the making of a certain storm sewer improvement, designated by the municipal authorities as 'Storm Sewer Improvement SR-211,' initially authorized by resolution No. 2833, and sought to enjoin the city from enforcing or attempting to enforce the liens entered for a proportionate part of the costs thereof against his property, described as lot 11, block 3, and lot 11, block 4, Escottonia Park, and the lands lying between the eastern boundary of said lots and Biscayne Bay.

Complaint was also made on the constitutional ground that the improvements ordered had resulted in no benefits whatsoever to the lands assessed for part of their cost, and that the cost of the improvement had not been constitutionally apportioned according to any alleged benefits, claimed to have been brought about.

The chancellor sustained the city's demurrer to the complainant's amended bill of complaint, holding in terms that 'upon consideration thereof the court finds there was a substantial compliance with the city charter by the defendant, its officers and employees, in making the assessments and in giving the several notices required by the charter and ordinances of the city; that complainant failing to appear before the City Commission and interpose objections to the levy of the assessment, is estopped from applying to the court for relief on the ground that he derived no benefit from the installation of the storm sewer as alleged in the bill,' and that therefore the bill of complaint, as amended, should be dismissed. An appeal from the decree sustaining the demurrer and dismissing the bill brings the case here for review.

In the instant case we judicially notice the fact that the charter of the city is chapter 10847, Special Acts of 1925, and that such chapter is a part of the laws of the state of Florida and that appellant, as the owner of lands in the city, was charged with notice that under the charter the city had the lawful power conferred upon it to order special improvements, including storm sewer improvements, and to assess and apportion the cost thereof against benefited properties located in the city, whether owned by residents or nonresidents, upon following certain procedure laid down with reference to the exercise of the power conferred.

The procedure contemplated to be followed, in order to make assessments under this act effective, embraced the following steps: (a) The passage of a special resolution ordering the improvement to be made, giving any short and convenient designation to the improvement ordered, such resolution being hereinafter referred to as the 'preliminary' resolution; (b) preparation and filing of plans and specifications of the improvement ordered; (c) publication of notice by the city clerk that such plans and specifications and estimates had been made, and indicating a date upon which the city commission would hear objections, if any, thereto; (d) hearing and confirmation of the preliminary resolution by the commission, with amendments or alterations, if ordered by the commission pursuant to objections; (e) record of the confirmatory resolution in a special book; (f) preparation of preliminary assessment roll to apportion costs after improvement authorized; (g) apportionment of costs on such roll; (h) filing of preliminary assessment roll (which is advisory only at this stage) with city clerk and publication of notice of such fact, and opportunity to appear at a hearing before the city commission to object thereto; (i) hearing of objections, if any, and revision, adoption, and confirmation of assessments according to finding of commission as to benefits; (j) opportunity to appeal for review of action of commission to circuit court.

The bill of complaint affirmatively showed that the city officials took the steps required by the statute, and that resolution No. 3703 was adopted by the city commission expressly finding that 'the amounts assessed against each of the lots or parcels of land in said preliminary assessment roll are less than the amount that each of said lots or parcels of ground is specially benefited by said improvement and that such amounts are in proportion to the special benefits that the property received.' The statute (section 56) provides that, after such confirmation of the assessment roll and its delivery to the director of finance, it shall be 'final and...