THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION, AN AGENCY OF THE STATE OF 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.
Florida's state attorneys challenged the Florida Development Commission's authority to issue $375,000 in revenue bonds for a Citrus Commission building, arguing the bonds violated the state constitution's requirements for public debt approval. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's validation of the bonds, holding that they were properly structured as revenue bonds secured solely by building rentals, not state obligations.
The court held that the Development Commission had valid authority under the enabling statute to issue the bonds. The bonds did not violate the constitutional debt prohibition because they were true revenue bonds secured exclusively by building rentals from the Citrus Commission, with no recourse to state funds or state obligation.
“The Florida Development Commission has authority to pledge rentals received for the use of the proposed building, if, as and when collected, to the payment of the revenue bonds herein validated”
Establishes that the Development Commission could pledge building rentals to secure revenue bonds
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 1955, the Florida Legislature created the Florida Development Commission by Chapter 29788, transferring powers from the abolished Florida State Imp…
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 Bond Validation cases and more on FLexlaw
O’CONNELL, Justice.
This is an appeal by the State Attorneys of the Second and Tenth Judicial Circuits from a final decree of the Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit, in and for Leon County, wherein the issuance of certain Citrus Commission Revenue Bonds, proposed to be issued by the Florida Development Commission, was validated.
The Florida Legislature, in 1955, enacted Chapter 29788, Laws of Florida, Acts of 1955, creating the Florida Development Commission, the appellee, and conferring upon it all the powers and duties formerly vested in The Florida State Improvement Commission, which body was simultaneously abolished. Sec. 3(t), 11(b), Ch. 29788, supra.
Pursuant to resolution of the Florida Citrus Commission, the appellee undertook to issue revenue bonds in amount of $375,-000 for the purpose of constructing a building in Lakeland to be used as headquarters for the Citrus Commission, and duly instituted validation proceedings in connection therewith. From a decree of the Circuit Court for Leon County approving the issue, the State has prosecuted this appeal.
All issues raised with reference to the validity of the enabling statute under Sec. 16, Art. III, of the Florida Constitution, F.S.A.Const., and the general authority of the Development Commission to engage in and perform the commitments contemplated herein, must be disposed of in favor of appellee. Van Pelt v. Hilliard, 75 Fla. 792, 78 So. 2d 693, L.R.A.1918E, 639; State v. Florida State Improvement Commission, 158 Fla. 743, 30 So. 2d 97, 99.
The remaining point urged by appellant is that the obligations in question, payable from rentals to be received from the Citrus Commission as tenant of the proposed building, come within the prohibition of Section 6, Art. IX of the Constitution, so as to require approval of freeholders. The ruling of the court below in this respect was that “The Florida Development Commission has authority to pledge rentals received for the use of the proposed building, if, as and when collected, to the payment of the revenue bonds herein validated (e-s.) that accordingly the provision was properly made therein that the obligation is “payable from rentals accruing under a Lease-Purchase Agreement between the Florida Citrus Commission and the Florida Development Commission”, and is “secured only by such revenues;” and thal under those provisions “the purchasers and holders of the revenue bonds must look solely and exclusively to the rentals produced by the building for the payment of * * * the revenue bonds. They may not look to any legal or moral obligation of the State of Florida or any department * * * to rent or pay rent upon the building * *
Upon a consideration of all the terms and provisions of the bonds sought to be validated and the lease-purchase agreement referred to, the conclusions of the court below appear to be fully warranted and sustained by law. State ex rel. Watson v. Caldwell, 156 Fla. 618, 23 So. 2d 855. And under the instruments as thus construed, it appears that the source of the funds to meet the rentals has no relation to the obligation of the bonds proposed to be validated. Cf. State v. Volusia County School Bd., Fla., 60 So. 2d 761; State v. Florida State Imp. Comm., 158 Fla. 743, 30 So. 2d 97. The final decree appealed from is therefore affirmed.
DREW, C. J., TERRELL, THOMAS, ROBERTS and THORNAL, JJ., and CRAWFORD, Associate Justice, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nohrr v. Brevard Cnty. Educ. Facilities Auth., 247 So. 2d 304 (Fla. 1971)…ral obligation on the part of the state, county, or authority to pay any portion of the bonds. This contention of Defendant is without merit. State v. Inter-American Central Authority, 84 So. 2d 9 (Fla.1955); State v. Florida Development Commission, 84 So. 2d 707 (Fla.1956). Fla.Stat. § 243.21(4), F.S.A., sets the terms of the members of the Authority at five years. Defendant says this creates an office extending more than four years in violation of Fla.Const., art. Ill, § 13. Fla.Const., art. IX, § 3, pro…
-
Wald v. Sarasota Cnty. Health Facilities Auth., 360 So. 2d 763 (Fla. 1978)…ral obligation on the part of the state, county, or authority to pay any portion of the bonds. This contention of Defendant is without merit. State v. Inter-American Central Authority, 84 So. 2d 9 (Fla.1955); State v. Florida Development Commission, 84 So. 2d 707 (Fla.1956). 247 So. 2d at 308-309. In Nohrr, therefore, we specifically noted that Article VII, Section 10(c) of this State’s Constitution, does not constitute the sole authority for the issuance of public revenue bonds. As was the case with the p…
-
State v. Fla. Dev. Comm'n, 95 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 1957)…atutory successor to the Florida State Improvement Commission and other agencies named in the creating act. We have heretofore sustained the constitutionality of Chapter 29788, Laws of Florida 1955. State v. Florida Development Commission, Fla.1956, 84 So. 2d 707; State v. Florida Development Commission, Fla.1956, 86 So. 2d 155. Inasmuch as the Florida Development Commission is the statutory successor to the Florida State Improvement Commission, our decisions relating to the powers and functions of the Impro…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Van Pelt v. Hilliard, 75 Fla. 792 (Fla. 1918)
- State v. Millard F. Caldwell, 156 Fla. 618 (Fla. 1945)
- State v. Johnny Duncan alias Tompkins, 156 Fla. 584 (Fla. 1945)
- State v. Fla. State Improvement Comm'n, 158 Fla. 743 (Fla. 1947)
- State v. Volusia Cnty. Sch. Bldg. Auth., 60 So. 2d 761 (Fla. 1952)