ALTON M. AKE, PETITIONER,
v.
GEORGE W. TEDDER, ET AL., RESPONDENTS
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 held that a Circuit Judge who is a taxpayer in a special taxing district is disqualified from hearing a mandamus proceeding brought by a bondholder to compel transfer of funds, where the sole defense challenges the validity of the district's bonds and resolution of that defense would directly benefit the judge's property by reducing his tax assessments.
The judge is disqualified to sit in such a cause. When the sole defense to a mandamus proceeding is grounded on the validity of bonds issued by a taxing district in which the trial judge is a property owner and taxpayer, and an affirmative answer to the defense would relieve his property of assessments, the judge lacks impartiality under the rule announced in State v. Thomas.
“where the sole defense is grounded on the validity of bonds issued by a taxing district in which the trial judge is a property owner and taxpayer and an affirmative answer to the defense would relieve his property of the assessments against them, he is under the rule announced by this Court in State v. Thomas, 99 Fla. 562, 126 So. 747, disqualified to sit in said cause”
Establishes the core holding regarding judicial disqualification based on personal financial interest in the outcome of bond validity litigation
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAlton M. Ake, a bondholder, filed a mandamus proceeding in Circuit Court of Broward County against the Broward County Port Authority and its members t…
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 Bondholder Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
A rule nisi was issued in this cause directed to respondents, commanding them to show cause why they should not be prohibited from proceeding to prosecute a proceeding in mandamus pending in the Circuit Court of Broward County, entitled:
State of Florida ex rel. Alton M. Ake, Relator, v. A. J. Ryan, Floud L. Wray, Thomas E. Swanson and Maxwell Baxter as and constituting the members of the Broward County Port Authority, and A. J. Ryan, as Treasurer of said Port Authority, and Broward County Port Authority, a body corporate, Respondents.
To the rule nisi a demurrer and a return were entered. Both present the question of whether or not a Circuit Judge, who is a tax payer in a special taxing district, is disqualified to hear and determine a mandamus proceeding brought by a bondholder to compel the transfer of funds from the general to the bond fund of the district, the said funds having been wrongfully diverted to the general fund, when the sole defense urged to the alternative writ in the Circuit Court is that the bonds involved are null and void.
*362If the mandamus proceeding involved nothing more than the performance of a ministerial duty a different case would be presented but where the sole defense is grounded on the validity of bonds issued by a taxing district in which the trial judge is a property owner and taxpayer and an affirmative answer to the defense would relieve his property of the assessments against them, he is under the rule announced by this Court in State v. Thomas, 99 Fla. 562, 126 So. 747, disqualified to sit in said cause.
For the reasons announced in that opinion the demurrer to the rule nisi is over-ruled and the writ of prohibition is awarded.
Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis, BrowN and Buford, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pino v. The Bank OF NEW York, 121 So. 3d 23 (Fla. 2013)…d DCA 2004) (same). This so-called exception originated in several older equity cases decided by the Court during the first half of the twentieth century. See Shaw v. Morrison, 145 Fla. 443, 199 So. 566, 567 (1941); Willson v. Buxton, 110 Fla. 286, 149 So. 329, 330-31 (1933); Demos v. Walker, 99 Fla. 302, 126 So. 305, 306 (1930); Abney v. Hurner, 97 Fla. 240, 121 So. 883, 884 (1929); Smith v. Milham, 94 Fla. 1159, 115 So. 532, 533 (1927); Sontag Inv. Co. oflnd. v. Nautilus Realty Co., 78 Fla. 529, 83 So.…
-
Cooper v. Cooper, 194 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)…s “praying affirmative relief” or had “acquired * * a substantial right in the cause.” Abney v. Hurner, 1929, 97 Fla. 240, 121 So. 883; Spofford v. City Nat. Bldg., 1932, 106 Fla. 160, 142 So. 898, 143 So. 414; Willson v. Buxton, 1933, 110 Fla. 286, 149 So. 329. The word “counterclaim” used in Rule 1.35(a) (2) and also the language used in the cited cases is broad enough to cover the motion for affirmative relief filed by the defendant wife here. The principle has been especially applied to divorce cases…
-
Peacock v. Farmers & Merchs. Bank, 454 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)…argument must fail. As previously noted, the evidence does not establish that the appellee bank was guilty of acquiescence. Furthermore, the right of redemption can only be exercised where there has been a tender to the mortgagee. Willson v. Buxton, 149 So. 329, 330 (Fla.1933). Appellants made no tender to the appellee below. Appellant James William Peacock, Jr., testified that he went to Sun Federal Savings and Loan in an effort to avoid foreclosure and was told that if the appel-lee succeeded in “reclaim…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Elwyn Thomas, 99 Fla. 562 (Fla. 1930)