STATE OF FLORIDA, ETC., APPELLANT,
v.
DIVISION OF BOND FINANCE, 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.
Florida's Department of Bond Finance sought validation of a $200 million bond issuance that could be sold as either taxable or tax-exempt bonds to finance affordable housing mortgages. The state challenged the issuance on grounds that the agency lacked authority to issue taxable bonds and that the bonds did not serve a public purpose. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's validation, holding that the agency's general statutory authority to issue "bonds" encompasses both taxable and tax-exempt instruments, and that providing affordable housing mortgages constitutes a valid public purpose.
The court held that because the legislature did not specify a particular type of bond in DBF's statutory authority, the general term "bonds" encompasses both taxable and tax-exempt instruments, and therefore DBF may issue taxable bonds. The court also held that providing mortgages for low, moderate, and middle income persons at reasonable rates constitutes a valid public purpose, and the state failed to demonstrate the legislative declarations of public purpose were patently erroneous.
[1] A state agency's authority to issue "bonds" encompasses the authority to issue both taxable and tax-exempt bonds unless specifically prohibited by statute.
[2] The legislature's amendment of a statute to provide for interest waivers on taxable bonds issued on behalf of state agencies supports the interpretation that such agencie…
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“Because the legislature did not specify a certain type of bonds, we conclude that DBF may issue these taxable bonds.”
Establishes the court's holding that general authority to issue "bonds" encompasses both taxable and tax-exempt instruments
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn February 1986, the Florida Housing Finance Agency and the Division of Bond Finance (sitting as the governor and cabinet) adopted resolutions author…
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, Chief Justice.
The state appeals a trial court order validating a bond issuance by a state agency. We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(2), Florida Constitution, and affirm the trial court’s order. In February 1986 the Florida Housing Finance Agency adopted a resolution authorizing the issuance of $200,000,000 Home Ownership Mortgage Revenue Bonds. Sitting as the governing board of the Florida Division of Bond Finance (DBF), the governor and cabinet also adopted a resolution authorizing such bond issue. DBF then filed its complaint in the circuit court seeking validation of the bond issue. After holding a hearing on the matter, the trial court validated the bonds.
On appeal the state claims that the court’s order should be reversed because DBF is not authorized to issue taxable, as opposed to tax-exempt, bonds and because the subject bond issue fails to serve a public purpose. We disagree with the state’s contentions.
The court’s order states that these bonds “may be sold as either taxable, tax-exempt or any combination thereof.” In its findings of fact the court recognized that DBF has no specific statutory authority to issue taxable bonds. It also found, however, that there is no statutory prohibition against issuing taxable bonds. Moreover, the court noted that the 1986 legislature amended section 215.84, Florida Statutes, to provide for interest waivers for taxable bonds issued on behalf of state agencies.1
DBF claims that its authority to issue these bonds,2 by not specifying one or the other, encompasses both taxable and tax-exempt bonds. On its face the term “bonds” includes both taxable and tax-exempt bonds. Because the legislature did not specify a certain type of bonds, we conclude that DBF may issue these taxable bonds.
The trial court also'found that the bonds will serve a public purpose by providing mortgages for low, moderate, and middle income persons at reasonable rates. Compare State v. City of Pensacola, 397 So. 2d 922 (Fla.1981) (projects promoting decent housing serve a public purpose); State v. Housing Finance Authority, 376 So. 2d 1158 (Fla.1979) (projects alleviating a shortage of affordable housing and making capital available for investment in housing serve a public purpose). This finding echoes the findings in the resolutions adopted by the housing agency and the governor and cabinet. Legislative declarations of public purpose are presumed valid and are to be considered correct unless patently erroneous. Pepin v. Division of Bond Finance, 493 So. 2d 1013 (Fla.1986). The state has failed to demonstrate that the instant declarations of public purpose are erroneous.
Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s order validating these bonds.
It is so ordered.
ADKINS, BOYD, OVERTON, EHRLICH, SHAW and BARKETT, JJ., concur. . Ch. 86-15, § 1, Laws of Fla., added the following sentence to the end of § 215.84(1), Fla.Stat. (Supp.1986): "This section shall be applicable to debt instruments whose interest is either taxable or tax exempt from income taxation under federal law existing on the date the bonds are issued."
. §§ 215.57 — 215.83, 420.501 — 420.516, Fla.Stat. (1985).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
N. Fla. Women's Health & Counseling Servs., Inc. v. State, 866 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 2003)…. West & Conyers Architects & Engineers, 491 So. 2d 573 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). Further, legislative determinations of public purpose and facts are presumed correct and entitled to deference, unless clearly erroneous. See State v. Division of Bond Fin., 495 So. 2d 183 (Fla.1986), and Miami Home Milk Producers Ass’n v. Milk Control Bd., 124 Fla. 797, 169 So. 541 (1936). Because the Legislature’s factual and policy findings are presumed correct and there has been no showing that the findings in the instant case are…
-
Univ. OF Miami v. Echarte, 618 So. 2d 189 (Fla. 1993)…. West & Conyers Architects & Engineers, 491 So. 2d 573 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). Further, legislative determinations of public purpose and facts are presumed correct and entitled to deference, unless clearly erroneous. See State v. Division of Bond Fin., 495 So. 2d 183 (Fla.1986), and Miami Home Milk Producers Ass’n v. Milk Control Bd., 124 Fla. 797, 169 So. 541 (1936). Because the Legislature’s factual and policy findings are presumed correct and there has been no showing that the findings in the instant case are…
-
State v. Div. OF Bond Fin., 530 So. 2d 289 (Fla. 1988)…ow income if the project is financed by taxable revenue bonds. The trial court found specifically that the amendments serve a public purpose. Moreover, promoting affordable public housing is a valid public purpose. State v. Division of Bond Finance, 495 So. 2d 183 (Fla.1986), and cases cited therein. The state’s argument is, in reality, an objection to the political and policy considerations basic to the legislation authorizing housing revenue bonds. These areas lie beyond the “legitimate judicial province t…
Previewing 3 of 4 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)
- Pepin v. Div. OF Bond Fin., 493 So. 2d 1013 (Fla. 1986)
- THE Fla. BAR. In re, 397 So. 2d 922 (Fla. 1981)