MURRAY ZEDECK, APPELLANT,
v.
INDIAN TRACE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, APPELLEE
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.
Murray Zedeck challenged the validation of $9.5 million in water and sewer bonds issued by the Indian Trace Community Development District. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the bond validation, rejecting Zedeck's arguments that the district was improperly established and that the bonds primarily benefited private property rather than the public.
The district was properly established under section 190.005(3) even without unanimous landowner consent; collateral challenges to water management plans cannot be resolved in bond validation proceedings; and the bond issue serves a valid public purpose sufficient to overcome claims that it primarily benefits private property.
[1] A special municipal taxing district can be reestablished as a community development district under chapter 190, Florida Statutes, even without the unanimous consent of al…
[2] Challenges to a district's water management plan are collateral matters that cannot be resolved in a bond validation proceeding.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“This is a collateral matter which cannot be resolved in a bond validation. McCoy Restaurants, Inc. v. City of Orlando, 392 So.2d 252 (Fla.1980); State v. Sunrise Lakes Phase II Special Recreation District, 383 So.2d 631 (Fla.1980).”
Establishes that challenges to water management plans cannot be heard in bond validation proceedings.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 1975, Broward County created the Indian Trace Special Municipal Taxing District comprised of approximately 13,000 acres, with Arvida Corporation ow…
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 Public Purpose Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
McDonald, justice.
Zedeck appeals a final judgment validating the issuance of $9,500,000 of water and sewer system expansion bonds. We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(2), Florida Constitution, and affirm the final judgment.
In 1975 the Broward County Commission created the Indian Trace Special Municipal Taxing District (ITSMTD), composed of approximately 13,000 acres. Arvida Corporation is the district’s majority landowner with 10,000 acres, while Zedeck, as trustee, owns 31.5 acres. In 1980 the legislature enacted chapter 190, Florida Statutes, the Uniform Community Development District Act of 1980. The ITSMTD petitioned to have itself reestablished as a community development district under chapter 190. The county commission supported the petition, and the hearing officer recommended granting the petition, which the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission did. As the newly established Indian Trace Community Development District (ITCDD), the district’s board of directors divided the district into three areas or basins and filed a complaint requesting validation of the issuance of $9,500,000 in water and sewer system expansion bonds for basin 1. The circuit court found the complaint proper and validated the bond issue in June 1982. Zedeck, as trustee owner of land in basin 3, attacks the bond validation in this appeal.
Zedeck claims that for the ITCDD to have been properly established the petition should have contained the written consent of 100 percent of the affected landowners as prescribed by subsection 190.005(l)(a)2. The district, on the other hand, contends that under subsection 190.005(3) the district was properly reestablished even without all of the landowners’ consent. After reviewing the record, we agree with the district and the trial court that the ITCDD has been duly constituted and established under chapter 190.
At the time of the bond validation proceedings numerous persons had already challenged the district’s water management plan in separate litigation. Zedeck claims that the district abused its discretion by pursuing the bond validation prior to resolution of that litigation. This is a collateral matter which cannot be resolved in a bond validation. McCoy Restaurants, Inc. v. City of Orlando, 392 So. 2d 252 (Fla.1980); State v. Sunrise Lakes Phase II Special Recreation District, 383 So. 2d 631 (Fla.1980). We, therefore, find no merit to this claim.
As his final point, Zedeck claims that the primary purpose of the bond issue is to benefit private property. The expansion of water and sewer systems contemplated by the ITCDD and the bond issue for implementing that expansion are within the purposes of chapter 190 and within the powers given community development districts to implement those purposes. §§ 190.002, 190.011, 190.012, 190.016. A legislative declaration of public purpose is presumed valid and should be considered correct unless patently erroneous. State v. Housing Finance Authority of Polk County, 376 So. 2d 1158 (Fla.1979). Even though the system expansion affects primarily land owned by Arvida, the public interest in this project is present and sufficiently strong to overcome Zedeck’s claim.
Finding no error, we affirm the final judgment validating this bond issue.
It is so ordered.
ALDERMAN, C.J., and ADKINS, BOYD, OVERTON and EHRLICH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Taylor v. LEE Cnty., 498 So. 2d 424 (Fla. 1986)…2(9), the county may “fix, regulate, and collect rates and charges” for services and facilities. As the county points out, collateral issues will not be resolved in bond validation proceedings. Zedeck v. Indian Trace Community Development District, 428 So. 2d 647 (Fla.1983). Although the generation of revenue to fund this bond issue depends on the county’s authority to impose tolls, placing a toll on an existing toll-free bridge is collateral to this bond validation. Taylor’s first claim, therefore, is outsi…
-
Boschen v. City OF Clearwater, 777 So. 2d 958 (Fla. 2001)…lative declarations of public purpose are presumed valid and should be considered correct unless patently erroneous.” State v. Housing Fin. Auth. of Pinellas County, 506 So. 2d 397, 399 (Fla.1987); accord Zedeck v. Indian Trace Community Dev. Dist., 428 So. 2d 647, 648 (Fla.1983); see also Nohrr v. Brevard County Educ. Facilities Auth., 247 So. 2d 304, 309 (Fla.1971) (“The finding of the Legislature is determinative, and Defendant has failed to show that such determination was so clearly wrong as to be beyond…
-
Wohl v. State, 480 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 1985)…assaults on the validity of the Series 1981 and Series 1984 bonds and the Series 1985 notes raise collateral issues and, therefore, are inappropriate matters for this bond validation proceeding. Zedeck v. Indian Trace Community Development District, 428 So. 2d 647, 648 (Fla.1983); McCoy Restaurants v. City of Orlando, 392 So. 2d at 253. Accordingly, we approve the final judgment validating the Series 1985A bonds. It is so ordered. BOYD, C.J., and ADKINS, McDONALD and EHRLICH, JJ., concur. SHAW, J., dissen…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State of Fla. & the Taxpayers v. Hous. Fin. Auth. OF Polk Cnty., 376 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 1979)
- McCOY Rests., Inc. v. City OF Orlando, 392 So. 2d 252 (Fla. 1980)
- State v. Sunrise Lakes Phase II Special Rec. Dist., 383 So. 2d 631 (Fla. 1980)