STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
LEE COUNTY, 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.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the validation of Tax Anticipation Certificates issued by Lee County to finance courthouse expansion. The Court held these certificates were not unconstitutional bonds, distinguishing them from the prohibition against issuing bonds for cash.
No, Tax Anticipation Certificates, when sold for cash to finance public improvements, are not considered "bonds" within the prohibition of Section 6, Article 9 of the Florida Constitution. The Court found no practical difference between selling certificates for cash and delivering them to a contractor in lieu of cash payment.
“We can see no difference between selling the certificates for cash and delivering them to the contractor in lieu of cash payment for his services under the contract.”
This quote explains the court's reasoning that the method of financing (selling for cash vs. direct payment to contractor) does not alter the nature of the certificates in relation to the constitutional prohibition.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLee County sought to validate Tax Anticipation Certificates to fund courthouse expansion, intending to sell them for cash. The State's attorney argued…
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.
Lee County filed a petition in the circuit court, twelfth judicial circuit, seeking the validation of certain Tax Anticipation Certificates which it proposed to issue pursuant to Section 135.01 Florida Statutes, F.S.A. in order to finance the expansion of its courthouse facilities. The Board of County Commissioners proposed to negotiate and sell such certificates for cash as distinguished from the delivery of nonnegotiable certificates to the contractor as payment for work performed or materials furnished.
The State’s attorney filed his answer which in essence alleged the certificates were bonds within the prohibition of Section 6, Article 9, Florida Constitution, F.S.A. He contends that by virtue of our holding in Tapers v. Pichard, Fla.1936, 124 Fla. 549, 169 So. 39, such certificates may not be sold for cash but only may be delivered to the contractor to be carried by him or discounted by him.
With this contentiton we do not agree. We can see no difference between selling the certificates for cash and delivering them to the contractor in lieu of cash payment for his services under the contract.
We therefore hold the Tax Anticipation Certificates herein involved are not bonds *789within the meaning of Section 6, Article 9 of the Florida Constitution and we hereby affirm the decision of the Circuit Court validating said certificates.
It is so ordered.
TERRELL, and DREW, JJ-, concur.
THORNAL, J., concurs specially.
THOMAS, C. J., agrees to conclusion.
(concurring specially).
I concur in the opinion and judgment hut only because of the reasons stated in my special concurring opinion in State v. County of Palm Beach, Fla.1956, 89 So.2d 607. I continue to entertain doubt as to the validity of this type of public financing but inasmuch as a courthouse only is involved I am willing to concede that I am bound by the precedents.
THORNAL, Justice
(concurring specially).
I concur in the opinion and judgment hut only because of the reasons stated in my special concurring opinion in State v. County of Palm Beach, Fla.1956, 89 So. 2d 607. I continue to entertain doubt as to the validity of this type of public financing but inasmuch as a courthouse only is involved I am willing to concede that I am bound by the precedents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Cnty. OF Dade, 234 So. 2d 651 (Fla. 1970)…952) ; State v. St. Johns County, 60 So. 2d 530 (Fla.1952) ; State v. County of Palm Beach, 89 So. 2d 607 (Fla.1956) ; State v. County of Dade, 92 So. 2d 186 (Fla.1957); State v. County of Santa Rosa, 105 So. 2d 365 (Fla.1958) ; State v. Lee County, 121 So. 2d 788 (Fla.1960); Kearney v. County of St. Lucie, 126 So. 2d 140 (Fla.1961). . Mize v. County of Seminole, Florida, Fla., 229 So. 2d 841, opinion filed September 24, 1969. . 85 So. 2d 852, 855, 59 A.L.E.2d 706 (Fla. 1956). . "Advalorem taxes, exclusive…1 / 2
-
Kearney v. Cnty. OF ST. Lucie, 126 So. 2d 140 (Fla. 1961)…. State v. Lafayette County, Fla.1952, 55 So. 2d 799; State v. St. Johns County, Fla.1952, 60 So. 2d 530; State v. Palm Beach County, Fla. 1956, 89 So. 2d 607; State v. Santa Rosa County, Fla.1958, 105 So. 2d 365, and State v. Lee County, Fla. 1960, 121 So. 2d 788. All the last cited cases approve the doctrine that certificates of indebtedness issued pursuant to § 135.01, Florida Statutes, F. S.A., for the erection of court houses and jails or additions thereto do not require an approving vote of the freehold…
-
State v. Fla. Dev. Comm'n & State Bd. of Admin., 211 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 1968)…So. 2d 607 (county office building); State v. County of Dade (Fla.1957), 92 So. 2d 186 (jail and criminal courts building); State v. County of Santa Rosa (Fla.1958), 105 So. 2d 365 (additions to courthouse and jail); State v. Lee County (Fla.1960), 121 So. 2d 788 (additions to courthouse). As shown by the above cited decisions, and others relating to state revenue bonds, the use of tax funds or appropriated revenues to provide an essential government requirement is not repugnant to the Constitution, so long…
Authorities Cited
- Tapers v. Pichard, 124 Fla. 549 (Fla. 1936)
- McCAFFEREY v. State, 89 So. 2d 607 (Fla. 1956)
- State v. Cnty. OF Palm Beach, 89 So. 2d 607 (Fla. 1956)