Opinion
December 15, 1950.
Appeal from the Circuit Court, Highlands County, D.O. Rogers, J.
Glynn O. Rasco, Miami, and J. Lewis Hall, Tallahassee, for appellants.
Treadwell Treadwell, E.D. Treadwell, Jr., Chesterfield H. Smith, all of Arcadia, Kinsey Livington and Howard G. Livingston, all of Sebring, for appellees.
Pursuant to Chapter 173, F.S.A. the Town of Lake Placid, hereinafter called the Town, filed its amended bill of complaint to foreclose municipal tax liens accruing for the non-payment of bond service taxes levied for the years 1926 to 1941 inclusive. The appellants being owners of lands previously ousted from the Town in State ex rel. Davis v. Town of Lake Placid, 109 Fla. 419, 147 So. 468; State ex rel. Landis v. Town of Lake Placid, 117 Fla. 874, 158 So. 497; Id., 121 Fla. 839, 164 So. 531, filed joint answers to the bill of complaint in which they alleged that their lands were beyond the jurisdiction of the Town, that they were so situated that they had never received any benefits from the proceeds of the bonds and could not in the future receive any benefits therefrom. In their answer appellants incorporated a counterclaim setting up a like defense and prayed for injunctive relief against the defendant from enforcing proposed assessments against their lands.
A motion to strike the answer and counterclaim was granted and that judgment was, on appeal, affirmed by this Court. 159 Fla. 180, 31 So.2d 249. On remand a reply to the answer and counterclaim was interposed denying the material allegations thereof. The reply also set up the legislative, fiscal and judicial history of the Town including a decision of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, commanding the Town to levy the identical taxes involved in this suit. The reply also alleged that on account of long acquiescence in the assessment of said taxes it would now be inequitable and unjust to impose the bonded indebtedness on the boundaries of the Town as defined in the 1937 Act, as more than sixty per cent of the lands described in the said Act were of the same character relative to benefits as the lands of appellants. A motion to strike pertinent portions of the reply was denied, testimony was taken and on final hearing the chancellor found for the Town and imposed a lien in its favor for the years 1926 to 1941 inclusive against each parcel of land described in the bill of complaint, including the lands of appellants. This appeal is from that decree.
The primary point decided by the trial court and brought here for review is whether or not the lands of defendants received any direct or indirect benefits from the expenditure of the bond proceeds brought in question.
It is not denied that the boundaries of the Town were twice contracted by the litigation referred to in the forepart of this opinion, that the bonds were issued in 1926, more than 22 years before this suit was brought, that they were validated, refunded and the refunding bonds validated by decree of the Circuit Court which was, on appeal, affirmed by this Court. It is also shown that similar taxes were imposed by decree of the Federal District Court more than thirteen years ago, that prior to the refunding decrees, this Court held that the ousted lands were subject to a tax for debt service only and that 60 to 75 per cent of the lands remaining within the boundaries of the Town, in so far as benefits are concerned, are similar to the ousted lands and that at no time have any owners of ousted lands protested the assessments imposed on their lands.
This court is committed to the doctrine that notwithstanding lands have been ousted from the jurisdiction of a municipality, they are nevertheless subject to be taxed for debt service for bonds issued while said lands were apparently within the boundaries of the municipality. Such taxes are imposed on account of the de facto existence of the Town. Richmond v. Town of Largo, 155 Fla. 226, 19 So.2d 791; City of Leesburg v. Certain Lands, 154 Fla. 550, 18 So.2d 676; Henderson v. Town of Lake Placid, 132 Fla. 190, 181 So. 177.
One issue of bonds in the sum of $195,000.00 is all that is involved in this litigation. Of the proceeds thereof $75,000.00 was used to purchase and equip a golf course which was abandoned and is outside the boundary of the present Town. It appears from the pleadings that the Town had its genesis in one of many grandiose paper schemes that characterized the 1925 boom. It appears that everybody in the proposed town approved it then but when the "bubble busted", most every one wanted to get from under the improvident burden that had been incurred. In addition to the golf course the remainder of the bond proceeds was spent for water works, street improvements, park purposes and a limited amount of fire and police protection. The chancellor evidently concluded that in view of these equities and the fact that no one protested the issuance of the bonds, that no one protested the annual tax levy which had been imposed more than twenty years to service them, that it would be inequitable and unjust to impose the whole burden on the lands within the present Town and thereby relieve the excluded lands.
This case presents aspects different from any case of its class that we have adjudicated. Whether or not appellants' lands received any benefits from the bond proceeds was squarely presented to the chancellor and we find evidence in the record to support the equities he relied on to impose the tax. It is not charged that the bond funds were wasted or misappropriated. It may be that some of appellants' lands received very little if any direct benefits. The money spent on the golf course and some of the other projects evidently vanished and ultimately benefitted no one, but the community approved hiring the money to accomplish the project. The fact that it went up in hot air is no reason to repudiate the obligation.
In every project that involves the hire of another's money there is a payday tucked away somewhere in the contract that matures in the offing. Those who aid and abet in the project are on notice of this and whether the project is a permanent improvement or a hay ride, whether the expenditure is provident or improvident, is not material if it is free from fraud.
We do not think this case is ruled by cases holding in effect that where lands are excluded from a municipality because they are so located that they can not now or will not in the future receive any municipal benefits, and should not be required to pay for such expenditures. We think the equities pointed out are sufficient to require payment of the bond service taxes in controversy.
Affirmed.
ADAMS, C.J., and CHAPMAN and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.