A. R. SHEATS
v.
COCOA BEACH SPECIAL ROAD AND BRIDGE DISTRICT, BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY AND THROUGH THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SAID COUNTY CONSISTING OF A. FORTENBERRY, CHAIRMAN, C. SWEET SMITH, A. A. DUNN, MAX RODES AND W. C. KLINGENSMITH
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 a decree validating road and bridge bonds, rejecting an intervenor's claim that the district could not issue new non-callable bonds to refund callable bonds because the call option had been cancelled. The court found no limitation on the number of times bonds could be called and upheld the validity of the refunding bonds.
Yes, the district can issue new refunding bonds. The court held that the option to call the existing bonds had no limitation on the number of times it could be exercised, and the cancellation of the call did not prevent the issuance of refunding bonds.
“The option to call the bonds contains no limitation as to how many times they may be called.”
This quote establishes the court's reasoning that the callable nature of the original bonds was not extinguished by the cancellation of a specific call.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Special Road and Bridge District sought to issue new, non-callable bonds with a lower interest rate to refund existing callable bonds. An interven…
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 Taxpayer Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal from a final decree validating road and bridge bonds.
The petition was filed under authority of c. 15772, Acts of 1931. The bonds sought to be refunded were issued in 1935 to refund bonds outstanding prior to November 6, 1934. Said bonds are callable. The proposed bonds to be now issued are non-callable and bear a lower rate of interest making a substantial saving in interest over a period of years.
Intervenor, a taxpayer and bond holder, claims that petitioner cancelled the call on the outstanding bonds prior to the entry of final decree, hence the bonds were no longer subject to call and that if the proposed bonds are issued the district will be burdened with a new debt without a vote of the people as required by law.
We find no merit in this contention. The option to call the bonds contains no limitation as to how many times they may be called. The purpose of the proposed issue is to refund the present outstanding bonds. The petitioner might in their discretion elect to call the outstanding bonds prior or subsequent to the validation proceedings. We have examined the record and final decree and find the same not inconsistent with the law; therefore the decree is affirmed.
Brown, C. J., Whitfield, Buford, Chapman, Thomas and Adams, J. J., concur.