THE BOARD OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION OF DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA AND SPECIAL TAX SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 7,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA
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 held that a circuit court erroneously refused to allow correction of a minor mathematical error in a school bond election resolution, despite finding the error harmless and that no taxpayer objected. The court reversed, holding that harmless errors in non-jurisdictional aspects of bond resolutions may be corrected even after the fact.
The court held that the circuit court erred in refusing to allow the correction. Although acknowledging the resolution's jurisdictional aspects, the court found that the specific error was harmless, did not affect the maturity and payment terms approved by freeholders, harmed no one, and could be corrected without requiring the burden and expense of a new election.
“It is admitted that all things essential to the validity of the bonds was complied with except the inadvertance pointed out in the resolution.”
Establishes that only a minor, inadvertent error prevented full compliance with constitutional requirements.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn May 1942, Special Tax School District No. 7 of Dade County held an election to approve a bond issue for public schools, with all procedural require…
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 Jurisdictional Error cases and more on FLexlaw
In May 1942 an election was held in Special Tax School District No. 7, of Dade County to approve a bond issue for public school purposes. It is admitted that the resolution providing for the election, the.notice thereof, the affirmative *720vote of the freeholders approving the same and all things essential to the calling and holding of the election were duly complied with. It is also shown that the bonds were regularly validated by decree of the Circuit Court and that the legislature of 1943 enacted Chapter 22244, ratifying and approving all acts done in connection with their issue.
War exigencies immediately intervened and none of the bonds were in fact issued and sold. It was later discovered that error was committed in the resolution authorizing the election for the bonds in that it was provided that two of the installments be in a sum less than three percent of the total principal of the issue as directed by Section 17, Article 12 of the Constitution, in other words it was proposed that the installment of bonds payable, in May 1971 and May 1972 be in the sum of $4,000.00 each when it was intended that the installment for May 1971 be in the sum of $5,000.00 and the installment for May 1972 be in the sum of $3,000.00.
A petition was filed in the Circuit Court calling attention to this error and praying that petitioners be permitted to correct the resolution to conform to its purpose and the requirement of the Constitution. The court found that the allegations of the petition were true, that no tax payer had complained or would be hurt by granting the relief sought, but that the resolution was jurisdictional and being so he was powerless to grant the relief prayed for. This appeal was prosecuted from that decree. .
We think the chancellor was in error. It is admitted that all things essential to the validity of the bonds was complied with except the inadvertance pointed out in the resolution. We think petitioners should have been permitted to correct this error because it was shown to have been a mere oversight, it did not effect the maturity and payment of the original issue of bonds as approved by the freeholders, no one would be hurt by permitting the correction and no one interested complained though ample opportunity was given to do so. This court and the Supreme Court of the United States have held that the citizen may waive a constitutional right made for his benefit. In the case at bar the error complained of was not only waived but it was shown by the *721record and the chancellor’s decree to have been harmless'. Extra delay, burden and expense should not be required to correct a harmless error.
The judgment is accordingly reversed with directions to permit the amendment as prayed for in the petition.
Reversed.
CHAPMAN, C. J., TERRELL, BUFORD and ADAMS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fletcher v. Bd. OF Pub. Instruction OF Gadsden Cnty., 160 Fla. 428 (Fla. 1948)…otal issue. The matter of fixing the schedule of maturities as required by the constitution was for the Board of Public Instruction and could be done at any time before the bonds were sold. Board of Public Instruction of Dade County et al. v. State, 156 Fla. 719, 24 So. (2nd) 105; State v. Board of Public Instruction of Hillsborough County, 158 Fla. 412, 28 So. (2nd) 865. It is next contended that the bonds in question cannot be lawfully delivered to the purchaser after January 1, 1948, because Special Tax…
-
Special TAX Sch. Dist. No. 1 of Duval Cnty. v. State, 16 Fla. Supp. 110 (Duval Cty. Cir. Ct. 1960)…n involved in this proceeding. As suggested by petitioners, the courts have been “benevolent” in excusing insubstantial irregularities and insignificant omissions in the holding of elections. Dade County Board of Public Instruction v. State (Fla.), 24 So. 2d 105; Bay County v. State (Fla.), 24 So. 2d 714; Town of Baldwin v. State (Fla.), 40 So. 2d 348. Likewise, there are many decisions in which the courts have declined to invalidate an election where there was not strict compliance with the “directory” pro…
-
Strange v. Sch. Bd. OF Citrus Cnty., 471 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)…held. We conclude in the light of this record, that appellant waived any right to a hearing on the charges for her suspension. Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 58 S.Ct. 1019, 82 L.Ed. 1461 (1938); Board of Public Instruction of Dade County v. State, 156 Fla. 719, 24 So. 2d 105 (1945); Barbon-Zurita v. State, 415 So. 2d 824 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1982). AFFIRMED. ORFINGER and FRANK D. UP-CHURCH, Jr., JJ., concur.…