WARNER CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, INC., ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
CITY OF NICEVILLE, FLORIDA, 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.
Warner Cable Communications appealed the circuit court's validation of a $2 million bond issue by the City of Niceville for a municipally owned cable television system. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed, holding that bond validation proceedings have limited scope and do not permit collateral challenges to economic feasibility, necessity, or federal regulatory compliance.
The court affirmed the trial court's validation of the bonds. Judicial inquiry in bond validation proceedings is sharply limited to determining whether the public body has authority to issue the bonds, whether the purpose is legal, and whether the bond issue complies with legal requirements. All other matters, including economic feasibility, necessity, and federal regulatory concerns, are collateral issues not cognizable in a bond validation proceeding.
[1] A bond validation proceeding is limited to determining whether a public body has the authority to issue bonds, whether the purpose of the bonds is legal, and whether the…
[2] Economic feasibility, fiscal feasibility, necessity, and the applicability of federal law are collateral issues that are not cognizable in a bond validation proceeding.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Judicial inquiry in bond validation proceedings is sharply limited. It extends only to determining if a public body has the authority to issue the subject bonds and if the purpose of the bonds is legal and to ensuring that the bond issue complies with all legal requirements.”
Establishes the narrow scope of review in bond validation proceedings and what courts may examine.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe City of Niceville filed a complaint to validate $2 million in revenue bonds for establishing a municipal cable television system. Warner Cable Com…
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
PER CURIAM.
Warner Cable Communications appeals the circuit court’s validation of a proposed bond issue by the City of Niceville. We have jurisdiction. Art. V § 3(b)(2), Fla. Const. We affirm the trial court’s order. Niceville filed a complaint for validation of $2,000,000 in revenue bonds with which it proposes to establish a municipally owned cable television system. Both the state and Warner answered the complaint. Warner, which currently provides cable service in Niceville, raised several affirmative defenses, including, among other things, the economic and fiscal feasibility of a municipally owned cable project, the necessity for such a project, and the applicability of federal cable law. On the city's motion the court struck the defenses as being collateral to a bond validation proceeding. The court later validated the bond issue, and this appeal ensued.
Warner now claims that the court erred in finding the bond issue to be for a public purpose and to have been enacted in accordance with law. The cable company also complains that the court erred in its rulings on Warner’s defenses. Niceville, on the other hand, supports the court’s validation of the bond issue.
Judicial inquiry in bond validation proceedings is sharply limited. It extends only to determining if a public body has the authority to issue the subject bonds and if the purpose of the bonds is legal and to ensuring that the bond issue complies with all legal requirements. Lodwick v. School District of Palm Beach County, 506 So. 2d 407 (Fla.1987); Taylor v. Lee County, 498 So. 2d 424 (Fla.1986). Other matters are collateral to a bond issuance and will not be addressed in a validation proceeding. Zedeck v. Indian Trace Community Development District, 428 So. 2d 647 (Fla.1983).
The circuit court found that the city had authority to issue these bonds, that they were for a valid public purpose, and that the city had complied with the requirements of law. Warner has demonstrated no error in the court’s findings. We also agree with Niceville and the circuit court that Warner’s affirmative defenses are collateral issues and, therefore, not cognizable in this bond validation.* We affirm the trial court’s order. It is so ordered.
McDonald, C.J., and OVERTON, EHRLICH, SHAW, BARKETT, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur. *
Niceville points out that Warner has filed several lawsuits against the city raising these same issues. While they may be addressed by other courts in other cases, they are not properly raised in a bond validation.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
D.L. Byrd v. City OF Niceville, 541 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)…rty of the city; the city has the authority to issue the bonds, the purpose of the obligation is legal, and the city’s authorization of the obligation complies with the requirements of law. In Warner Cable Communications, Inc. v. City of Niceville, 520 So. 2d 245 (Fla.1988), the court affirmed that final judgment. In its opinion, the court rejected Warner’s assertion that the trial court improperly struck several of its affirmative defenses.1 The court agreed with the trial court that Warner’s affirmative de…
-
Warner Cable Commc'ns, Inc. v. City OF Niceville, 581 So. 2d 1352 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…art and reverse in part. This case involves a series of final orders and appellate opinions: (1) a final order in a bond-validation proceeding that was affirmed by the Florida Supreme Court in Warner Cable Communications, Inc. v. City of Niceville, 520 So. 2d 245 (Fla.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 825, 109 S.Ct. 74, 102 L.Ed.2d 51 (1988) [hereafter referred to as Warner /]; (2) a final order in a subsequent case that was affirmed in part and reversed in part and remanded by this court in Byrd v. City of Nicevill…
-
Gerentine v. McCOMB, 586 So. 2d 94 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)…aintiffs Louis Gerentine and Michael Gerentine, as Personal Representatives of the Estate of Shirley Ann Gerentine, appeal from a final summary judgment dismissing their wrongful death action. We affirm. In Gerentine v. Coastal Securities Systems, 520 So. 2d 245 (Fla.1988), the Florida Supreme Court instructed us to reconsider the elements necessary for the Plaintiffs to plead and prove a cause of action for gross negligence pursuant to section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes, in light of Streeter v. Sullivan,…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Taylor v. LEE Cnty., 498 So. 2d 424 (Fla. 1986)
- Murray Zedeck v. Indian Trace Cmty. Dev. Dist., 428 So. 2d 647 (Fla. 1983)
- Lodwick v. Sch. Dist. OF Palm Beach Cnty., 506 So. 2d 407 (Fla. 1987)