JAMES RISHER, ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
TOWN OF INGLIS, 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 Florida Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's validation of $1,000,000 in water system revenue bonds issued by the Town of Inglis, rejecting the Rishers' arguments that the town lacked the power to issue the bonds and that the validation proceedings should have been stayed pending resolution of a separate class action challenging the town's boundaries.
The court affirmed the validation, holding that the town had the power to issue the revenue bonds in the proper manner and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant a continuance, as the town's boundaries have no impact on its power to issue revenue bonds.
[1] Judicial inquiry in bond validations is limited to determining if a public entity has the power to issue the bonds, if the purpose of the bonds is legal, and if the bond…
[2] Introducing the supporting resolution can be sufficient to justify the validation of a bond issue.
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“Judicial inquiry into bond validations is limited to determining if a public entity has the power to issue the bonds and if the purpose of the bonds is legal and to ensuring that the bond issue complies with the requirements of law.”
Establishes the limited scope of judicial review in bond validation cases.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Town of Inglis sought validation of not to exceed $1,000,000 in water system revenue bonds. The Rishers intervened in the validation proceedings 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.
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a bond validation. We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(2) of the state constitution and affirm the trial court’s order. The Town of Inglis filed a complaint for validation of not to exceed $1,000,000 in water system revenue bonds. The state answered, and the Rishers intervened. The Rishers had previously filed a class action against the town contesting the town’s legal boundaries, and they asked the court to stay the bond validation until resolution of their class action. After a hearing, the court issued its final judgment validating the proposed bond issue. The Rishers now argue that the court erred both in concluding that the town has the power and authority to issue these bonds and in refusing to stay the validation proceedings.
Judicial inquiry into bond validations is limited to determining if a public entity has the power to issue the bonds and if the purpose of the bonds is legal and to ensuring that the bond issue complies with the requirements of law. Lodwick v. School District, 506 So. 2d 407 (Fla.1987). In the final judgment the court recited the statutory authority for the bonds, the terms of the bonds, and the facts of the adoption and publication of the bond resolution, among other things. The court found the resolution to have been “duly adopted in accordance with law” and “legal and valid in every respect.” The court also found that all requirements of the state constitution and laws had been met and that all necessary procedures had been followed. The Rishers claim that no evidence supports finding that the town has the requisite power to incur this bonded indebtedness, but they have not favored us with a transcript of the hearing or anything else to support their contention.
Introducing the supporting resolution can be sufficient to justify validation. Rianhard v. Port of Palm Beach District, 186 So. 2d 503 (Fla.1966). The trial court’s order is based on the instant resolution, and no error has been demonstrated. We therefore agree with the conclusion that the town had the power to provide for this proposed bond issue and that it did so in the proper manner. We also find no error in the court’s refusal to grant a continuance. The subject of the Risher’s class action, i.e., the town’s boundaries, has no impact or effect on the town’s power to issue revenue bonds. The granting of a continuance is within the court’s discretion, Rianhard, and we find no abuse of discretion here.
The order validating the proposed bond issue is, therefore, affirmed.
It is so ordered.
McDonald, C.J., and OVERTON, EHRLICH, SHAW, BARKETT, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
GRW Corp. v. Dep't OF Corr., 642 So. 2d 718 (Fla. 1994)…l review in validation proceedings focuses on whether: (1) a public body has the authority to incur the obligation; (2) the purpose of the obligation is legal; and (3) the proceedings authorizing the obligation were proper. Risher v. Town of Inglis, 522 So. 2d 355 (Fla.1988); State v. City of Daytona Beach, 431 So. 2d 981 (Fla.1983). The purpose of these judicial inquiries is to facilitate an adjudication as to the regularity and validity of the steps taken to issue the indebtedness in order to assure marketa…
Authorities Cited
- Rianhard v. Port OF Palm Beach Dist., 186 So. 2d 503 (Fla. 1966)
- Lodwick v. Sch. Dist. OF Palm Beach Cnty., 506 So. 2d 407 (Fla. 1987)