CITY OF SUNRISE, FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
TOWN OF DAVIE, ETC., 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.
The court held that a motion to intervene in a bond validation proceeding should be denied if it seeks to raise an issue not germane to the validation itself.
The City of Sunrise sought to intervene in a bond validation proceeding initiated by the Town of Davie. Sunrise feared Davie's expansion would preempt…
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
McDONALD, Justice.
The City of Sunrise, Florida seeks reversal of a final order denying its motion to intervene in a bond validation proceeding initiated by the Town of Davie, Florida.1 We affirm the trial court’s order. Davie sought to validate approximately $35,000,000 of water and sewer bonds for the primary purpose of acquiring, constructing, improving, and expanding its present water and sewer system. Sunrise sought to intervene because it feared that Davie’s expansion would preempt services now being delivered by Sunrise in a portion of Davie.2 Davie, claiming that Sunrise had no standing and that it sought to raise an issue collateral to the scope of a bond validation hearing, objected to Sunrise’s intervention. The trial court agreed, disallowed the intervention, and approved the bonds.
We agree with Davie that Sunrise’s claim that a portion of the funds to be received from the sale of revenue bonds may possibly be used in violation of section 180.06, Florida Statutes (1983), is not a pertinent issue to be raised in the validation hearing. We find that McCoy Restaurants, Inc. v. City of Orlando, 392 So. 2d 252 (Fla.1980), and State v. City of Daytona Beach, 431 So. 2d 981 (Fla.1983), control. Hence, the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in denying a motion to intervene when the motion sought to raise a matter not germane to the validation.3
The order of the trial judge denying intervention is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
BOYD, C.J., and ADKINS, OVERTON, ALDERMAN, EHRLICH and SHAW, JJ., concur. . Our jurisdiction arises from art. V, § 3(b)(2), Fla. Const. . Sunrise had purchased the utility performing these services from a private utility company before this territory became a part of Davie.
.We also note, though having no affect on our legal conclusion, that Davie has by supplemental ordinance disavowed any intention to provide services to the territory now being served by Sunrise.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Y.H. v. F.L.H. and K.W.H., 784 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…(“Consent may be withdrawn only when the court finds that the consent was obtained by fraud or duress.”). II. An order denying a motion to intervene is final as to and appealable by [*568] the movant. See, e. g., City of Sunrise v. Town of Davie, 472 So. 2d 458, 459 (Fla.1985). On appeal as below, however, Y.H. also argues that it was error not to consolidate the case pending in Duval County with the case she had initiated in Hillsbor-ough County. But no appeal lies from a non-final order denying consolida…
-
Khilena Adhin v. First Horizon Home Loans, 44 So. 3d 1245 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)…by the Legislature. The trial court agreed with First Horizon’s position and denied rehearing. This appeal followed. An order denying a motion to intervene is final as to, and appealable by, the movant. See, e.g., City of Sunrise v. Town of Davie, 472 So. 2d 458, 459 (Fla. 1985); Y.H. v. F.L.H., 784 So. 2d 565, 567-68 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). Ordinarily, a trial court’s denial of a motion to intervene is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. See Superior Fence & Rail of N. Fla. v. Lucas, 35 So. 3d 104, 104 (Fla.…
-
Kramer A. Litvak v. Scylla Props., LLC, 946 So. 2d 1165 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)…ubsequent to class certification, Citizens filed its answer and affirmative defenses, and the case went forward. III. “An order denying a motion to intervene is final as to and appealable by the movant. See, e.g., City of Sunrise v. Town of Davie, 472 So. 2d 458, 459 (Fla. 1985).” Y.H. v. F.L.H., 784 So. 2d 565, 567-68 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). The trial court’s denial of a motion to intervene is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See Wingrove Estates Homeowners Ass’n v. Paul Curtis Realty, Inc., 744 So. 2d 1242,…
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
- McCOY Rests., Inc. v. City OF Orlando, 392 So. 2d 252 (Fla. 1980)
- State v. City OF Daytona Beach, 431 So. 2d 981 (Fla. 1983)