STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
CITY OF WEST PALM BEACH, 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 upheld the validity of $490,000 in parking revenue bonds issued by West Palm Beach under a 1960 ordinance. The court resolved a conflict between the 1960 ordinance and provisions of the city's 1965 charter by holding that the 1960 ordinance remained fully effective for purposes of authorizing future bond issues despite conflicting charter provisions.
The 1960 ordinance remains fully effective to authorize the Series B bond issue, notwithstanding conflicting provisions in the 1965 charter. Section 16.02 of the 1965 charter explicitly provides that bond ordinances in effect on the charter's effective date shall remain in effect for authorizing bonds issued at times after that date.
“Each bond ordinance in effect on the effective date hereof shall remain in effect, including all provisions thereof authorizing issuance of bonds at a time or times after the effective date hereof.”
Charter Section 16.02 provision that resolved the conflict by preserving the 1960 ordinance's full effectiveness for future bond issuance
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 1960, West Palm Beach adopted an ordinance authorizing revenue bonds for off-street parking facilities and parking meters. Section 210 of that ordi…
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 Ordinance Construction cases and more on FLexlaw
This is a chancery appeal from a final decree validating an issue of Parking Facilities Revenue Bonds (Series B) of the City of West Palm Beach in the amount of $490,000. The proceeds are to be used to provide additional off-street parking facilities.
In 1960, pursuant to Ch. 183 F.S., the city commission adopted Ordinance No. 753 authorizing the issuance of revenue bonds for the provision of both off-street parking facilities and parking meters. Validation of the initial bond issue (Series A) was affirmed by this court. Fla., 125 So.2d 568. Section 210 of the 1960 ordinance authorized the future issuance of additional series of revenue bonds for additional parking facilities, to be financed from the common project established by that ordinance. It was pursuant to this authorization that the city commission adopted the 1966 ordinance (No. 963-66) authorizing the bond issue involved in this proceeding.
The city is presently governed under a charter granted by the legislature by Chapter 65-2381, Special Laws of Florida, 1965. Secs. 8.02(4) and 8.03(2) of the charter contain provisions that would arguably affect the validity of the present bond issue if they applied to it. However, Sec. 16.02 of the charter provides, in part:
“Each bond ordinance in effect on the effective date hereof shall remain in effect, including all provisions thereof authorizing issuance of bonds at a time or times after the effective date hereof.”
The appellant state acknowledges that this provision operates to maintain in effect the 1960 ordinance. However, it urges a construction according to which the 1960 ordinance would control future bond issues, including the one under consideration, subject to the detailed provisions of the 1965 charter, including the two referred to above. The appellee city; on the other hand, urges a construction according to which the 1960 ordinance would be fully effective as to such bond issues as this, notwithstanding the provisions of the 1965 charter which conflict with it. The chancellor adopted the construction urged by the appellee.
After deliberate consideration of the arguments by brief of both parties and of the oral argument of the appellee, we conclude that the chancellor was correct and should be affirmed. Under this disposition, there is no need to consider the substantive implications of the conflicting provisions of the 1965 charter referred, to above.
Therefore, the decree of validation is affirmed.
THORNAL, C. J., and DREW, CALDWELL and ERVIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
City OF Boca Raton v. State of Fla. & Byrd Marshall, 200 So. 2d 793 (Fla. 1967)…limit as contended by the Appellees and held by the chancellor. Appreciation of this view is strengthened by consideration of the obvious purpose of allowing and providing for pari passu bonds. See State of Florida v. City of West Palm Beach, Fla., 197 So. 2d 516 (opinion filed April 5, 1967). We next examine that portion of the chancellor’s- decree regarding whether the revenues from operation of the proposed water and sewer system would be sufficient to meet the required per centum of annual principal and…
Authorities Cited
- State v. City OF W. Palm Beach, 125 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 1960)