J. F. DICKEY
v.
BROWARD COUNTY PORT AUTHORITY; B. F. BUTLER, AS CHAIRMAN, AND DAVE TURNER AND I. C. WILLIAMS, AS MEMBERS OF AND CONSTITUTING THE BROWARD COUNTY PORT AUTHORITY: FRANCES MEYER, AS SECRETARY; W. T. ELLER, AS PORT MANAGER; THE DANIA BANK; AND THE ARUNDEL CORPORATION, A MARYLAND 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.
This case concerns a taxpayer's challenge to the issuance of Harbor Revenue Certificates by the Broward County Port Authority. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding the certificates were validly issued and did not require a taxpayer vote.
Yes, the Harbor Revenue Certificates were validly authorized and issued. The court found that the certificates were not bonds requiring a taxpayer vote and that the relevant legislative acts were properly enacted.
“The Harbor Revenue Certificates are not bonds requiring an approving vote of the taxpayers as contemplated by Section 6 of Article IX of the Constitution.”
Establishes that the certificates did not require a taxpayer vote.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Broward County Port Authority sought to issue $200,000 in Harbor Revenue Certificates to fund port improvements. These certificates were to be pai…
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 Revenue Certificates cases and more on FLexlaw
Broward County Port District and its governing agency, Broward County Port Authority, were created by Chapter 17506, Special Acts of 1935. Through Chapter 17506, Special Acts of 1935, and Chapter 18442, Special Acts of 1937, the Broward County Port Authority was authorized to issue and sell bonds or revenue certificates for stated purposes. On December 9, 1938, the Broward County Port Authority adopted a resolution providing for the issuance of $200,000 in Harbor Revenue Certificates to aid in the construction of a slip and bulkheads as improvements to the existing system of port facilities at Port Everglades, said certificates to be paid solely from the revenues derived from services rendered by the Broward County Port Authority through its port facilities and to be issued without an approving vote of the taxpayers of the Broward County Port District as contemplated by Section 6 of Article IX of the Constitution.
The resolution was predicated on á finding of fact that Broward County Port Authority owns, operates, and maintains its port facilities at Port Everglades which have been paying a large and substantial net income over operating expenses, that the improvements proposed are essential and necessary, that the present facilities are inadequate for the heeds of the 'Port Authority, that the said Port Authority is authorized to issue said certificates and that the principal and interest thereon are secured by an exclusive first lien on all revenues and income derived from the operation of the Port system after the cost of operation is deducted. They are in -no sense a debt against the Broward County Port District, payable from taxes, or other revenues therefrom.
*624It was also shown that Broward County Port Authority is indebted to the Arundel Corporation of Baltimore, Maryland-, in the sum of $38,127.25, to the Dania Bank at Dania in the sum of $47,000.00, and that for the payment of said sums, the net revenues of the port authority were pledged, but that the Port Authority and the Dania Bank on the one hand and the Port • Authority and Arundel Corporation on the other, have entered into agreements by which the lien of the claims held by the Dania Bank and Arundel Corporation will become subordinate to and inferior to the lien created by the Harbor Revenue Certificates.
'The appellant, J. F. Dickey, a citizen and taxpayer in the Broward County Port District, filed his bill of complaint in the Circuit Court seeking to restrain the issuance of said Bank and Arundel Corporaion. A motion to dismiss the bill of complaint was granted and this appeal was prosecuted.
The grounds urged for reversal of the decree below are identical with those urged in the Circuit Court to restrain the issuance of the certificates and the execution of the contracts. The first question as to the certificates was definitely answered contrary to the contention of Appellant in McGoon v. Town of Miami Springs and cases cited therein, decided December 16, 1938.
As to whether or not the 'Legislature observed the requirements of law in the enactment of Chapter 17506, Special Acts of 1935, and Chapter 18422, Special Acts of 1937, little need be said. The bill of complaint is dearth of allegations to show that every requirement was not observed in the passage of the latter Act and as to the former Act, the case of State, ex rel. Swanson, v. Strickland, 122 Fla. 784, 166 So. 313, is conclusive against appellant’s contention.
*625Likewise we find no objection to the contract between Broward County Port Authority and the Dania Bank on the one hand and the Broward County Port Authority and Arundel Corporation on the other. Appellee and both these corporations were authorized to make contracts. The contracts in question were not against public policy and were within the contracting power of the parties. They were such contracts as any parties free to contract may enter into.
The Harbor Revenue Certificates are not bonds requiring an approving vote of the taxpayers as contemplated by Section 6 of Article IX of the Constitution. McGoon v. Town of Miami Springs, decided December 16, 1938, and cases therein cited. There is nothing in the resolution requiring the district to become responsible for the payment of the certificates or any part thereof in its taxing capacity. Payment must be made from the income derived from the port facilities and not otherwise.'
The decree appealed from is therefore affirmed.
Affirmed.
Whitfield, Brown, Buford and Chapman, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rowe v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 142 Fla. 746 (Fla. 1940)…btedness as requires an approving vote of the taxpayers, and is concluded by the following cases: Hess v. City of Orlando, 133 Fla. 831, 183 So. 473; Trudnak v. City of Fort Pierce, 135 Fla. 573, 185 So. 353; Dickey v. Broward County Port Authority, 135 Fla. 622, 185, So. 349. Other questions have been examined but they present no reversible error so the judgment of the Chancellor is affirmed. Affirmed. Whitfield, P. J., Brown, Buford, Ci-iapman and Thomas, J. J., concur.…
-
State ex rel. Adrian W. Weigel v. Spangler, 139 Fla. 201 (Fla. 1939)…eceiver appointed under conditions stated in the Act in no sense changed the status or the method of paying the Harbor Revenue Certificates brought in question. The validity of said certificates was upheld in Dickey v. Broward County Port Authority, 135 Fla. 622, 185 So. 349. They are required to be paid from -fees and charges other than taxes collected by the Port Authority and in no sense involved the taxing power. The right to appoint a receiver did not change this status in any respect. If the taxing po…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Strickland, 122 Fla. 784 (Fla. 1936)