DAVID SHOLTZ, ET AL.,
v.
STATE, EX REL. FREDERICK W. DEFOE
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.
This case addresses whether a county's certification that refunding bonds have been issued and that all available state funds be credited solely to those refunding bonds can defeat a bondholder's mandamus action to recover payment on defaulted original bonds. The Florida Supreme Court held that such earmarking of revenues cannot override the bondholder's rights absent a proper debt service tax levy by the county.
The Court held that any subsequent attempted earmarking of revenues properly allocable to the sinking fund by crediting them solely to refunding bonds cannot defeat a mandamus writ of the holder of defaulted original issue bonds unless the county obligor has made a lawful and proper levy of debt service taxes sufficient to provide for payment of the unrefunded and defaulted securities.
“any subsequent attempted "ear-marking" of revenues properly allocable to the sinking fund, by appropriating them to principal and interest on only such part of the road and bridge obligations payable out of such sinking fund as are represented by exchanged refunding bonds, cannot avail as against the mandamus writ of the holder of defaulted road or bridge bonds of the original issue”
Establishes the core holding that earmarking revenues to refunding bonds cannot defeat mandamus rights of original bondholders
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA county issued road bonds and later refunded certain outstanding bonds. The County Commissioners certified to the State Board of Administration that …
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 Sinking Fund cases and more on FLexlaw
The following opinion which was prepared by the late Mr. Justice Davis has been adopted by the Court as its opinion:
This case presents the contention, briefly put, That where certain of a county’s outstanding road bonds have been refunded and the Board of County Commissioners have certified to the State Board of Administration (Chapter 14486, Acts 1929) that the refunding bonds have been issued, and that there has been appropriated in the county’s budget, for credit to the account of said refunding bonds, and to them alone, all funds accruing and to accrue to- the county’s credit in the hands of the State Board of Administration as provided by law, that such certification of the County Commissioners, followed by an actual credit entered on its record by the State Board of Administration of- all funds .on hand to the refunding issue to the prejudice of the original .bonds, can be set up in defense to an alternative'writ *901of mandamus obtained by a bondholder to procure payment of certain securities of the original issue that were in default. The Circuit Court rejected the defense and entered final judgment for the relator below. Respondent State Board of Administration has taken writ of error.
On the authority of the following prior decisions of this Court: State, ex rel. City & County Holding Co., v. Board Public Inst. Broward County, 120 Fla. 599, 163 Sou. Rep. 8; City of Kissimmee v. State, ex rel. Ben Hur Life Ass’n, 121 Fla. 151, 163 Sou. Rep. 473; Sholtz v. State, ex rel Ben Hur Life Ass’n, 122 Fla. 249, 165 Sou. Rep. 39; State, ex rel. Andrews, v. Sholtz, 120 Fla. 423, 162 Sou. Rep. 865; State, ex rel. Davis, v. State Board of Administration, 115 Fla. 806, 156 Sou. Rep. 130, we hold, as did the Circuit Court, that where a county has appropriated its anticipated gasoline tax revenue to its road and bridge bond sinking fund, and in consequence thereof has exercised its statutory privilege of reducing its debt service tax levies ’ that' would otherwise have been necessary to- be made for the benefit of its outstanding unpaid road and bridge bonds for the support of which the sinking fund was established, that any subsequent attempted “ear-marking” of revenues propT erly allocable to the sinking fund, by appropriating them to principal and interest on only such part of the road and bridge obligations payable out of such sinking fund as are represented by exchanged refunding bonds, cannot ávail as against the mandamus writ of the holder of defaulted road or bridge bonds of the original issue, absent a showing that the county or district obligor on the bonds has made’ in due season a lawful and proper levy of debt service ■ taxes sufficient to provide for the payment of the unrefunded and defaulted securities according to the obligations '.of. the original contractual sense thereof, inherent in their issuance.
*902Affirmed.
Terrell, Brown, Buford and Chapman, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cone v. Knott, 137 Fla. 417 (Fla. 1939)…following cases support this view. State, ex rel. Simmons v. Harris, 119 Fla. 375, 161 So. 374; State, ex rel. City and County Holding Company v. Board of Public Instruction of Broward County, 120 Fla. 599, 163 So. 8; Sholtz v. State, ex rel. Defoe, 128 Fla. 899, 176 So. 37; Cone v. State, ex rel. Florida Securities, 135 Fla. 339, 185 So. 150. It is shown that the funds in question are still in the hands of the bank subject to disbursement by the agent of respondents. It is' not contended that the refunding…
-
Cone v. Knott, 144 Fla. 738 (Fla. 1940)…ne tax levied by the Legislature and appropriated to the county to be used by the Board of Administration in the payment of county and district road and bridge bonds, and interest thereon, are involved. In the case of Sholtz v. State ex rel. DeFoe, 128 Fla. 899, 176 Sou. 37, we said: “On the authority of the following prior decisions of this Court: State ex rel. City & County Holding Co. v. Board Public Inst., Broward County, 120 Fla. 599, 163 Sou. Rep. 8; City of Kissimmee v. State ex rel. Ben Hur Life A…
-
Cone v. Knott, 135 Fla. 339 (Fla. 1938)…he legal principle involved is so well settled by previous decisions of this Court that it is not necessary to write any extended opinion. The controlling question presented here wis presented in the case of Sholtz, et al., v. State, ex rel. Defoe, 128 Fla. 899, 176 Sou. 37, in which we said: “This case presents the contention, briefly put, that where certain of a county's outstanding road bonds have been refunded and the Board of County Commissioners have certified to the State Board of Administration (C…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Sholtz, 120 Fla. 423 (Fla. 1935)
- State v. State Bd. of Admin., 115 Fla. 806 (Fla. 1934)
- State v. Bd. of Pub. Instruction of Broward Cnty., 120 Fla. 599 (Fla. 1935)
- Sholtz v. State, 122 Fla. 249 (Fla. 1935)
- City of Kissimmee v. State, 121 Fla. 151 (Fla. 1935)
- Mears v. State, 121 Fla. 239 (Fla. 1935)