176 So. 3d 249
Fla.2015Background
- Clean Energy Coastal Corridor (an interlocal entity under §163.01(7)) was formed by three Miami‑Dade municipalities to finance PACE qualifying property improvements by issuing revenue bonds up to $500,000,000.
- Participation in the PACE program is voluntary; financing is secured by non‑ad valorem assessments collected under chapter 197’s uniform tax‑bill method (§197.3632) as required by §163.08(4).
- Clean Energy filed a Leon County bond‑validation action; Broward County never joined the interlocal agreement, so Clean Energy voluntarily dismissed Broward property owners from the case.
- Objectors (including one Miami‑Dade resident and two Broward residents who were later dismissed) challenged validation, arguing the model financing agreement improperly authorized judicial foreclosure to collect delinquent assessments.
- The circuit court validated the bonds but limited the financing agreement to collection by methods authorized by chapter 197; it struck the Broward residents’ responses for lack of standing.
- The Florida Supreme Court affirmed validation but remanded to require Clean Energy to amend the financing agreement to remove all references to judicial foreclosure and to file the approved amendment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Clean Energy has authority and whether financing agreement is lawful because it references judicial foreclosure | Financing agreement improperly authorizes judicial foreclosure, which conflicts with chapter 197 collection scheme, so bonds cannot be validated | Clean Energy conceded judicial foreclosure is not currently an appropriate remedy and argued the agreement allows only appropriate legal remedies and is severable | Court held references to judicial foreclosure are inconsistent with chapter 197; severed/limited those references and validated bonds but remanded to require removal of all foreclosure references from the form financing agreement |
| Whether the special‑assessment funding meets the two‑prong test for assessments funding bonds (special benefit and apportionment) | Objectors implied challenge (arguing improprieties in bond documents) | Clean Energy maintained assessments are non‑ad valorem, collected pursuant to chapter 197 and meet statutory requirements | Court applied precedent (two‑prong test) and found no defect sufficient to invalidate the issuance given the financing will be collected under chapter 197; bonds validated |
| Whether Broward residents had standing to appear after voluntary dismissal of Broward interests | Broward residents participated and argued errors in documents; claimed justiciable interest | Clean Energy voluntarily dismissed all Broward property owners, taxpayers, and citizens from the case | Court held Broward residents lacked standing after the voluntary dismissal and affirmed the circuit court’s striking of their responses |
| Remedy/relief: whether the court may validate despite problematic contract language | Objectors sought invalidation or correction | Clean Energy sought validation and offered limiting construction; financing agreement contains severability clause | Court validated but remanded for ministerial amendment: require Clean Energy governing‑board approval and filing of amended financing agreement removing foreclosure references |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Winter Springs v. State, 776 So. 2d 255 (explanation of two‑prong test for special assessments)
- State v. City of Port Orange, 650 So. 2d 1 (legality of financing agreement is subsumed in authority to issue bonds)
- Fonte v. AT&T Wireless Servs., Inc., 903 So. 2d 1019 (severability of illegal contract provisions)
- County of Palm Beach v. State, 342 So. 2d 56 (court may read bond documents to conform to lawful intent and validate where proper use is shown)
- Rich v. State, 663 So. 2d 1321 (definition of a person "interested" for intervention/standing in bond validation proceedings)