H. D. FLETCHER, A TAX PAYER OF GADSDEN COUNTY, FLORIDA,
v.
BOARD OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION OF GADSDEN COUNTY, FLORIDA, FOR AND ON BEHALF OF SPECIAL TAX SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 5 OF GADSDEN COUNTY, 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.
A Florida taxpayer challenged the validity of bonds issued by a special tax school district for gymnasium and bandroom construction. The Florida Supreme Court upheld the bond validation, rejecting arguments that constitutional maturity requirements and post-consolidation timing issues invalidated the bonds.
The court held that both challenges to bond validity lacked merit. The Board of Public Instruction had authority to fix the schedule of bond maturities conforming to constitutional requirements at any time before bonds were sold, regardless of when the freeholder approval vote occurred. Additionally, bonds issued and validated prior to consolidation remain obligations of the district that issued them, and the timing of delivery after consolidation does not affect validity.
“The approving vote of the freeholders was for the purpose of consenting to the total issue. The matter of fixing the schedule of maturities as required by the constitution was for the Board of Public Instruction and could be done at any time before the bonds were sold.”
Establishes that the Board's authority to set maturity schedules is separate from and not constrained by the timing of voter approval.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSpecial Tax School District No. 5 of Gadsden County held an election and obtained freeholder approval to issue bonds for constructing and equipping a …
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 Bond Validation Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw
This appeal is from a final decree validating a bond issue proposed by Special Tax School District No. 5, of Gadsden County, for the purpose of constructing and equipping a gymnasium and a bandroom. It is shown that the bonds were approved by a majority vote of the freeholders of the district in an election called and held as required by Section 6, Article IX of the Constitution. The appellant, H. D. Fletcher, a tax payer in the district, was permitted to intervene and became a party to the validation proceedings. He filed an answer in which he challenges the validity of the bonds for grounds which we shall now discuss.
He first contends that the resolution of the Board of Public Instruction calling the election to approve issuing the bonds inadvertently provided that two of the annual payment installments be in sums less than three per cent of the total issue and that this error could not be subsequently corrected to conform to the requirements of the constitution.
Section 17, of Article XIII of the Constitution requires that each annual installment of bonds of the kind in question “shall be not less than three per cent of the total amount of the issue.” The amended resolution changed the annual installments maturing January 1, 1966 and January 1, 1967, *430from $1000. each to $1500. each to meet the requirement of the constitution. The resolution and the validating decree were seasonably amended to conform to this change. The fact that these things were done after the approving vote of the freeholders was not material. The approving vote of the freeholders was for the purpose of consenting to the total issue. The matter of fixing the schedule of maturities as required by the constitution was for the Board of Public Instruction and could be done at any time before the bonds were sold. Board of Public Instruction of Dade County et al. v. State, 156 Fla. 719, 24 So. (2nd) 105; State v. Board of Public Instruction of Hillsborough County, 158 Fla. 412, 28 So. (2nd) 865.
It is next contended that the bonds in question cannot be lawfully delivered to the purchaser after January 1, 1948, because Special Tax School District No. 5 which issued them was on that date consolidated with Special Tax School District No. 1, embracing all of Gadsden County.
There is no merit to this contention. Section 230.34, Florida Statutes 1941, authorizes the consolidation of special tax school districts. The legislature of 1947 amended this act to provide that after January 1, 1948, all special Tax School Districts in each county including territory not previously within them, shall be consolidated in one school district to be known as Special Tax School District No. 1, the boundaries thereof to coincide with those of the county. This act also provides that obligations incurred prior to consolidation remain the obligation of the area which incurred it. .
The bonds in question were issued and validated prior to January 1, 1948, by special tax school district, No. 5, so the date of their delivery makes no difference. They were the obligation of the District that issued them. State v. Orange County, 153 Fla. 43, 13 So. (2nd) 805, and State v. Special Road and Bridge District No. 9, Polk County, Florida, 153 Fla. 44, 13 So. (2nd) 801, are persuasive but not directly in point.
The validating decree was free from error and is affirmed.
Affirmed.
THOMAS, C. J., CHAPMAN and SEBRING, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The State of Fla. & the Taxpayers v. Bd. OF Pub. Instruction FOR Sumter Cnty., 86 So. 2d 652 (Fla. 1956)…t the territory in the debtor-district that district survived, or, • at least, its area continued to be subject to its debts. A similar situation was considered in the case of Fletcher v. Board of Public Instruction of Gadsden County, 160 Fla. 428, 35 So. 2d 121. We held in that case that bonds issued by a district and validated before consolidation cotild be delivered afterward. We decide in the present cáse that the board in providing for refunding the debt was simply obeying the mandate to “see that the…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Special Rd. & Bridge Dist. NO. 9 OF Polk Cnty., 153 Fla. 44 (Fla. 1943)
- THE Bd. OF Pub. Instruction OF Dade Cnty. v. State, 156 Fla. 719 (Fla. 1945)
- State v. Orange Cnty., 153 Fla. 43 (Fla. 1943)
- THE State OF Fla. & others v. THE Bd. OF Pub. Instruction OF Hillsborough Cnty., 158 Fla. 412 (Fla. 1947)
- Lorenz v. Lea G. Lorenz, 152 Fla. 778 (Fla. 1942)