LEROY FARROW, PAUL SIMPSON AND THE STATE
v.
CITY OF HIALEAH, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
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 a decree validating refunding bonds issued by the City of Hialeah, rejecting taxpayers' collateral attack on the original bond issue based on alleged statutory and charter violations. The court held that challenges to the validity of previously validated bonds are barred by the doctrine of res judicata.
The court held that such allegations are insufficient to defeat validation of refunding bonds because questions regarding the validity of previously validated bonds become res judicata once the validation decree becomes final, and collateral attacks on such final decrees are barred.
“Such questions as are attempted to be raised as to the validity of the bond issue of 1926 which is now sought to be refunded became res adjudicata when the decree of validation thereof became absolute.”
Establishes that prior validation decrees are conclusive and cannot be collaterally attacked in subsequent validation proceedings.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe City of Hialeah sought to validate refunding bonds. Taxpayers filed an answer objecting that the original bonds being refunded were invalid due to…
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 Collateral Attack cases and more on FLexlaw
The appeal brings for review decree validating an issue of refunding bonds.
Two questions are stated in brief for appellant, as follows :
“In a proceeding to validate a refunding bond issue of a municipality, should an answer be stricken and a final decree entered on behalf of said municipality when taxpayers have filed an answer alleging that the original bonds of said municipality are invalid, voidable and of no legal effect due to the fact that the notice as required by the statutes and laws of the State of Florida were never complied with in the original validation proceedings of the bonds of said municipality, in that one publication of the notice required by the State of Florida to be published was not in fact ever published.”
“2. In a proceeding to validate certain refunding bonds of a municipality, should an answer be stricken and a final decree entered on behalf of said municipality when taxpayers have filed an answer alleging that the original bonds issued by said municipality are void, invalid and of no legal effect because the said charter of said municipality was not complied with in the issuance of the original bonds in that the charter of said city provides for bonds to be issued under ' two sections thereof, the first section providing that *623the bonds so issued by said municipality shall bring Ninety (90%) Per Cent, and accrued interest from the sale thereof, and the second providing that the bonds shall bring Eighty-eight (88%) Per Cent, and accrued interest for the sale of said bonds, when in fact the answer alleges that said bonds actually brought Eighty (80%) Per Cent, plus accrued interest to said municipality.”
The questions stated do not state the question which we are required to determine. The question presented by the record is whether or not an answer filed in a refunding bond validation proceeding is sufficient when the only objection raised by such answer is that irregularities and non-compliance with statutory provision occurred in the issuance of the bonds which are proposed to be refunded by the present issue when the' petition for validation and the answer of intervenors both show that the bond issue or issues sought to be refunded were issued by the proper municipal officers in what purported to be compliance with statutory provisions, that such bonds were issued for municipal purposes and were validated by decree of the Circuit Court having jurisdiction of the cause.
Such questions as are attempted to be raised as to the validity of the bond issue of 1926 which is now sought to be refunded became res adjudicata when the decree of validation thereof became absolute. The attack here is a collateral one on a final decree of a court of record. On other ‘ collateral attacks the same decree has heretofore been questioned and that decree has been held to be res adjudicata of the validity of- the bonds now sought to be refunded. See Sparks, as Mayor, et al., v. Ewing, 120 Fla. 520, 163 Sou. 112; City of Hialeah, et al., v. State, ex rel. Ben Hur Life Association, 128 Fla. 46, 174 Sou. 843. Also see State, ex rel. Ben Hur Life Association, v. City of Hialeah, 130 Fla. 375, 177 Sou. 712.
*624There was no reversible error in holding the allegations of the answer insufficient.
The decree of validation should be and is affirmed.
So ordered.
Affirmed.
Whitfield, Terrell, Brown, Buford and Chapman, ■ J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Smoak v. Graham, 167 So. 2d 559 (Fla. 1964)…dings upon any such claim after objection is filed; * * . Art. Y, Sec. 4, Florida Constitution, F.S.A. . Note 1, supra. . Atlantic National Bank of Jacksonville v. Kirkwood (1943), 152 Fla. 59, 10 So. 2d 743; In re Jeffries’ Estate, 136 Fla. 410, 181 So. 838; Goggin v. Shanley (Fla.1958), 81 So. 2d 728, 730. . The second petition filed Sept. 18, 1962, recited: “3. That on the 24th day of July, 1961, your Petitioner filed a petition for extension of time to said claim, and in which petition your Petiti…
-
State v. City of Venice, 147 Fla. 70 (Fla. 1941)…is Court in the case of City of Venice v. State, 96 Fla. 527, 118 Sou. 308, and thereupon the question of the validity of these bonds in this regard was forever set at rest. See Sparks v. Ewing, 120 Fla. 520, 163 Sou. 112; Farrow v. City of Hialeah, 132 Fla. 621, 181 Sou. 838. The contentions presented under Question 6, supra, have been hereinbefore disposed of. [*77] It has also been argued in the presentation of this cause by the appellants that the issuance of refunding bonds is contrary to the best int…
Authorities Cited
- Sparks v. Ewing, 120 Fla. 520 (Fla. 1935)
- City of Hialeah v. State, 128 Fla. 46 (Fla. 1937)
- State v. City of Hialeah, 130 Fla. 375 (Fla. 1937)