DEAN K. MATT, Appellant, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, et al., Appellees.
No. SC2024-0990
Supreme Court of Florida
July 9, 2026
FRANCIS, J.
Appellant, Dean K. Matt, appeals the final judgment validating the University Park Recreation District’s 2024 bond issue, which was approved via referendum by a majority of Matt’s fellow residents to improve the neighborhood’s recreational services. We have jurisdiction1 and affirm the bond validation final judgment.
The University Park Recreation District
Appellee, the University Park Recreation District (“UPRD”), is a special, independent recreation district that was established in 2018 under chapters 189 and 418, Florida Statutes,2 and by Manatee County Ordinance Number 18-29 (effective August 2, 2018). The purpose of creating the UPRD as an independent recreation district was to purchase, maintain, and improve the University Park Country Club, including its clubhouse, twenty-seven-hole golf course, and other recreational facilities. See Manatee County, Fla., Ordinance No. 18-29 (Aug. 2, 2018); see also
Ordinance 18-29 contains specific legislative findings establishing that the UPRD “serves a public purpose.” Ordinance 18-29 at 2. Among those findings, Ordinance 18-29 provides that “[t]he creation of the UPRD is the best available alternative for delivering . . . recreational services and facilities because it provides flexible funding mechanisms to assure the long-term availability of recreational facilities and services for the residents of the UPRD.” Id. The legislative findings also establish that “[t]he UPRD is amenable to separate special district government” based on a vote by the majority of the “electors” (one vote per either owner or resident); that “[a]ll of the territory within the UPRD will be benefitted by the long-term operation and maintenance of the recreational facilities by the UPRD”; and that “[t]he health and well-being of the public within the UPRD will be benefitted by the establishment of the UPRD.” Id.
2019 Bond Issue
To carry out the primary purpose of the UPRD—to purchase
Thus, for the 2019 bond issue, a first supplemental indenture was executed. As relevant to this case, section 5.04, entitled “Additional Bonds,” contained bracketed language indicating there would be no further bond issues after the 2019 bond issue. That section states:
The Issuer covenants not to issue any other Bonds or other debt obligations secured by the Series 2019 Non-Ad Valorem Assessments. [In addition, the Issuer covenants not to issue any other Bonds or debt obligations for capital projects, secured by Non-Ad Valorem Assessments on the assessable lands within the District that are subject to the Series 2019 Non-Ad Valorem Assessments. Such covenant shall not prohibit the Issuer from issuing refunding Bonds, or to finance any other capital project that is necessary to remediate any natural disaster, catastrophic damage or failure with respect to the Series 2019 Project.] [To be Discussed].
(Brackets and emphasis in original.)5
This Case: The 2024 Bond Issue
Matt purchased a home within the UPRD in May 2021 and reviewed section 5.04 of the first supplemental indenture before making his purchase. As he made clear throughout this litigation, his expectation was that there would be no further bond issues. But the Board proposed a 2024 bond issue. Matt objected, raising the bracketed language in section 5.04.
Specifically, in November 2023, the Board passed Resolution 2024-01 expressing its interest in another bond issue in the amount of $21,000,000 upon approval of the electors by referendum. The bonds would fund a capital improvement project to “build and expand certain facilities and fix certain infrastructure needs.” UPRD Resol. 2024-01, Ex. A (Nov. 3, 2023). The Board specifically listed the items to be added, fixed, or improved, along with the estimated costs, in the project description attached to the
- Golf Course Irrigation and Infrastructure $ 6,000,000
- Kitchen Expansion and Modernization $ 3,000,000
- Fitness Centre Expansion and Renovation $ 3,500,000
- Activity and Administration Centre $ 5,500,000
- Additional Parking $ 500,000
- Total: $18,500,000
Id.
Another resolution was passed in December 2023, in which the Board adopted an updated Master Assessment Methodology report (“Methodology report”). UPRD Resol. 2024-07, Ex. B (Dec. 8, 2023). In the Methodology report, the special benefits to be conferred by the proposed 2024 bond issue on the UPRD property owners were analyzed in section 1.6. Id. And section 1.6 described those benefits—the improvement of recreational facilities—generally in terms of increasing and preserving property values associated with a golf course community. Id.
The referendum vote on the proposed 2024 bond issue was set for January 16, 2024. In the meantime, the Board conducted meetings and town halls with the residents, at which Matt seems to have led the charge in opposition, arguing that the section 5.04 bracketed language barred further bond issues. He also challenged
Ultimately, the Board heard Matt’s concerns and took steps to correct and clarify the section 5.04 bracketed language in the 2019 supplement. On January 12, 2024, four days before the scheduled referendum vote, the Board passed Resolution 2024-08 to correct the first supplemental indenture and authorize a second supplement to the Master Indenture. The Board cited its authority in section 13.01 of the Master Indenture to amend the first supplemental indenture without the consent of the bondholders because the “amendments do not adversely affect the rights and remedies of such Bondholders.” Resol. 2024-08 at 3. Instead, the Board said that the amendments are meant to “cure any ambiguity or to cure, correct or supplement any defective provision (whether because of any inconsistency with any other provision in the Master Indenture or otherwise) in the First Supplemental Indenture.” Id.
Ultimately, Resolution 2024-08 set out the following bolded, underlined, and struck-through amendment to section 5.04
The Issuer covenants not to issue any other Bonds or debt obligations secured by the Series 2019 Non-Ad Valorem Assessments.
[In addition, the Issuer covenants not to issue any other Bonds or debt obligations for capital projects, secured by Non-Ad Valorem Assessments on the assessable lands within the District that are subject to the Series 2019 Non-Ad Valorem Assessments. Such covenant shall not prohibit the Issuer from issuing refunding Bonds, or to finance any other capital project that is necessary to remediate any natural disaster, catastrophic damage or failure with respect to the Series 2019 Project.][To be Discussed]Notwithstanding the foregoing covenant, the Issuer may, pursuant to authority granted by the Master Indenture, issue additional Bonds secured by Non-Ad Valorem Assessments to finance a Project specially benefitting District Lands, including District Lands that are subject to the Series 2019 Non-Ad Valorem Assessments.
Id. at 3-4.
On January 16, 2024, the referendum was held and the 2024 bond issue passed by a vote of 579 (yes) to 363 (no). See UPRD Resol. 2024-11 (Jan. 16, 2024). The next day, the Board passed Resolution 2024-12 authorizing the 2024 bond issue and counsel to seek validation in the Twelfth Judicial Circuit Court for Manatee County. See UPRD Resol. 2024-12 (Jan. 17, 2024).
Bond Validation Proceedings
On February 14, 2024, the UPRD filed its complaint for bond
Matt filed his answer on April 23, 2024. First, Matt asserted that the bracketed section 5.04 language acted as a bar to the 2024 bond issue. Second, Matt asserted that the UPRD did not meet its burden under this Court’s decision in City of Boca Raton to show special benefits.
Between the complaint and Matt’s answer, however, on March 8, 2024, the Board passed Resolution 2024-13, which corrected minor technical issues in Resolution 2024-08 requested by the Trustee.6 See UPRD Resol. 2024-13 (Mar. 8, 2024). In his April 23
The validation hearing was held on April 29, 2024.7 At the hearing, the UPRD submitted the Methodology report, which was admitted into evidence, and called its author, Kevin Plenzler, to testify.8 As to special benefits, Mr. Plenzler testified that “the continued enhancement of the recreational facilities of UPRD will create special benefits peculiar to and based on the logical relationship to the assessable properties in UPRD because those recreational facilities are an integral part of the University Park development.” As to allocation methodology, he testified that “given . . . the wide range of home values within UPRD, . . . this was done on a percentage comparison basis to show that the growth in home values exceeds the cost per unit and that this is reasonable given
During Matt’s cross-examination of Mr. Plenzler, Matt conceded the fair apportionment prong under the City of Boca Raton decision, agreeing it was fair and reasonable, but pressed Mr. Plenzler on how the special benefits increase the market values of the UPRD properties. Mr. Plenzler responded that Florida law does not require a regression analysis or mathematical precision. He also explained that the Methodology report “demonstrates that special benefits exceed total burden of debt” and referred to section 1.6, “where . . . his analysis showed that ‘[s]ince 2017, UPRD property values . . . have increased by 37.5% based on data via the Manatee County Property Appraiser.’ ” He further stated that the proposed assessments would, on average, amount to 2.73% of the 2022 market values of the homes.
Matt also testified at the hearing, primarily presenting the arguments asserted in his answer. Over a relevancy objection, the circuit court admitted all of Matt’s exhibits, including a copy of section 5.04 and its bracketed language from the 2019 supplement
Though the circuit court stated that it would review Matt’s exhibits before entering final judgment, it orally announced at the end of the hearing that it found the bond issue to be valid.
On May 13, 2024, Matt filed an emergency motion to stay the final judgment. In his motion to stay, as already mentioned, he took issue with the two different versions of Resolution 2024-13 and alleged that the UPRD engaged in possibly fraudulent and illegal activity.
The final judgment validating the bonds was issued the next day, on May 14. The circuit court concluded that the UPRD had the authority to issue the 2024 bonds and that the special benefits exceeded the total burden of debt based on Mr. Plenzler’s testimony, which the court deemed “persuasive, compelling, factually supported and largely unrebutted.” The final judgment does not address Matt’s arguments concerning the bracketed section 5.04 language.
Postjudgment Proceedings
Matt’s motion for stay was denied on May 15, one day after
Matt also filed an unsworn motion to disqualify the circuit court judge, Judge Edward Nicholas, on May 24, more than twenty days after the April 29 bond validation hearing. As grounds, he asserted that Judge Nicholas should be disqualified because he rendered the May 14 final judgment before considering Matt’s May 13 motion for an emergency stay and without considering all of Matt’s exhibits from the April 29 hearing, including video recordings that were admitted into evidence. Additionally, Matt asserted that Judge Nicholas demonstrated prejudice toward him during the hearing by treating him disrespectfully, alleging that “[t]wice during the Hearing, Judge Nicholas went on five-minute soliloquies/rants and lectured Defendant in a rude, sarcastic tone saying (paraphrasing) ‘No one is forcing you to stay in University Park and if you don’t like it you should move to Myakka (City).’ ”
Judge Nicholas entered an order denying Matt’s motion as legally insufficient under
Matt now raises three issues on appeal. First, he asserts the final judgment must be reversed because the UPRD lacked authority under the bracketed language in section 5.04 to impose another special assessment on the residential properties already servicing the 2019 bond issue. Second, Matt asserts that the UPRD failed to meet its burden at the hearing of proving the residential properties to be assessed would derive a special benefit outweighing the amount of the assessment pledged to repay the 2024 bond issue. Finally, Matt asserts the circuit court violated his due process right to a fair hearing by exhibiting prejudice toward him and failing to review his exhibits and emergency motion before entering final judgment. For the reasons explained below, we affirm.
II. ANALYSIS
Scope and Standard of Review of Bond Validation Judgments
The following rules and standard of review apply to both issues 1 (the UPRD’s authority) and 2 (special benefit to assessed properties), so we discuss those issues together.
On appeal, the scope of this Court’s review in bond validation proceedings is generally limited to three issues: “(1) whether the public body has authority to issue the subject bonds; (2) whether the purpose of the obligation is legal; and (3) whether bond issuance complies with the requirements of law.” Fla. Bankers Ass’n v. Fla. Dev. Fin. Corp., 176 So. 3d 1258, 1265 (Fla. 2015).
The circuit court’s order “comes to the Court with a presumption of correctness,” and “[t]he appellant has the burden of demonstrating that the record and evidence [fail] to support the [bond issuer] and the [circuit] court’s conclusions.” Fla. Bankers Ass’n, 176 So. 3d at 1265-66 (some alterations in original) (quoting Donovan v. Okaloosa County, 82 So. 3d 801, 805 (Fla. 2012)). This Court reviews the circuit court’s factual findings for competent, substantial evidence and its legal conclusions de novo. Id. at 1266.
Issue 1 – Authority to Issue the 2024 Bonds
Matt argues that the UPRD lacked authority to conduct the referendum because the bracketed section 5.04 language proposing to prohibit additional bonds was still in effect and legally binding at the time the UPRD expressed interest in holding a referendum on
Given the limited scope of bond validation proceedings, however, we find no error in the circuit court’s order concluding that the UPRD has the authority to issue the 2024 bonds.
As a foundational point, the circuit court properly found that the UPRD, as an independent recreation district, had authority to issue bonds under chapter 418, Florida Statutes, and Manatee County Ordinance 18-29. The very purpose of such districts is to essentially be statutorily authorized “financing vehicles.” See State v. Sunrise Lakes Phase II Special Recreation Dist., 383 So. 2d 631, 633 (Fla. 1980) (recognizing that “recreation districts are essentially financing vehicles which allow residents of a limited geographic area to provide for improvements that substantially benefit the residents in the district” and “[t]o finance these facilities, the charter of the recreation district may grant many powers including the power to issue bonds”).
And the circuit court did not err in specifically determining
As a condition precedent to filing of a complaint for the validation of bonds . . . the . . . district desiring to issue them shall cause an election to be held to authorize the issuance . . . and show prima facie that the election was in favor of the issuance . . . .
In rejecting a similar prematurity argument, this Court in Florida Bankers Ass‘n elaborated on why determining a district‘s authority is the first step in a bond validation proceeding under another provision of
Section 75.02, Florida Statutes , expressly states that the plaintiff in a bond validation proceeding “may determine its authority by law to issue bonds.” This presupposes that the bonds will not be issued and specific payment provisions enacted until after the validation proceeding. [The district] has statutory authority and a properly enacted resolution to issue the bonds and to seek a determination of the validity of the bond issue before it does so.
176 So. 3d at 1267 (emphasis added) (citation omitted). In other words, without a majority of the UPRD owners or residents voting
Here, the record reflects the UPRD complied with
Matt, however, wants to tie the hands of the UPRD with the first supplemental indenture‘s bracketed language proposing to prohibit further bond issues and have the referendum declared illegal. But as noted above, Matt has this backwards: under
As to whether the bracketed language in section 5.04 barred any further bond issue, we have said that “[s]ubsumed within the inquiry as to whether the public body has the authority to issue the subject bond is the legality of the financing agreement upon which the bond is secured.” Id. at 1266 (quoting Keys Citizens, 795 So. 2d at 946). But while the legality of a financial agreement itself is part of the limited scope of review on appeal, Matt does not challenge the legality of the entire financial agreement, i.e., the 2019 Master Indenture (a copy of which was not supplied by the parties), nor does he challenge the legality of the first supplemental indenture containing the bracketed section 5.04 language. As we explain, Matt‘s arguments about the effect of the bracketed language lack merit in any event, so we need not decide whether this aspect of his challenge falls within the scope of what our precedents have referred to as “the legality of a financial agreement.”
Even if Matt‘s challenge only to the bracketed section 5.04 language is within the scope of this Court‘s review, Resolution 2024-08 makes clear that the bracketed language was never adopted, and the resolution itself authorized a second supplemental indenture to amend and cure this language. Notably, Resolution 2024-08 was adopted before the referendum was held, and the second supplemental indenture was executed before the bond validation hearing. Further, Matt does not dispute the UPRD‘s finding in the resolution that the Master Indenture contemplates further bond issues. And though Matt takes issue with the order in
Thus, it appears the Board had the power to correct the 2019 first supplemental indenture by issuing a second supplemental indenture to ensure there was nothing encumbering the special assessment pledged for the repayment and marketability of the 2024 bond issue. And because the UPRD cured this issue by amending the bracketed section 5.04 language through resolutions and authorizing a second supplemental indenture to the Master Indenture, we find no error in the circuit court‘s final judgment based on its lack of discussion about the section 5.04 issue.
Accordingly, Matt has not carried his burden of demonstrating that the circuit court erred in concluding that the UPRD has the authority to issue the 2024 bonds.9
Issue 2 – Additional Special Assessment Analysis
Next, Matt argues that in validating the 2024 bond issue, the circuit court erred in concluding that the residential properties
When a bond issuance is to be funded by special assessments, this Court applies an “additional two-pronged test to evaluate whether those special assessments meet the requirements of the law.” Citizens Advocating Responsible Env‘t Sols., Inc. v. City of Marco Island, 959 So. 2d 203, 206 (Fla. 2007). The two-pronged test requires that: “(1) the property burdened by the assessment must derive a special benefit from the service provided by the assessment; and (2) the assessment for the services must be properly apportioned among the properties receiving the benefit.” City of Winter Springs v. State, 776 So. 2d 255, 257 (Fla. 2001).10
As this Court has stated, “[i]n evaluating whether a special benefit is conferred to property by the services for which the assessment is imposed . . . the test is whether there is a ‘logical relationship’ between the services provided and the benefit to real property.” Morris v. City of Cape Coral, 163 So. 3d 1174, 1177-78 (Fla. 2015) (quoting Lake County v. Water Oak Mgmt. Corp., 695 So. 2d 667, 669 (Fla. 1997)).
Matt focuses on the first prong,11 arguing that the UPRD did not meet its burden of demonstrating empirically how the special benefit will exceed the debt burden because it failed to present the type of testimony presented in City of Boca Raton. In that case, the City‘s urban economic consultant testified that “his analysis
Matt incorrectly reads City of Boca Raton. Even there, in reversing the circuit court‘s decision not to validate the bonds, this Court still concluded there was competent, substantial evidence to support the City‘s legislative findings and directly rejected Matt‘s argument, stating that “[t]he City was not required to specifically itemize a dollar amount of benefit to be received by each parcel.” Id. at 31 (emphasis added). This Court also noted that the exact methodology in determining a special benefit is “immaterial,” as many factors go into the appraisal of property, and, thus, the assessment “may vary within the district, as long as the amount of the assessment for each tract is not in excess of the proportional benefits as compared to other assessments on other tracts.” Id. (quoting S. Trail Fire Control Dist. v. State, 273 So. 2d 380, 384 (Fla. 1973)).
Additionally, in Morris, the municipality‘s experts testified that
Similarly here, between the UPRD‘s legislative findings, the findings in the Methodology report, and Mr. Plenzler‘s unrefuted testimony, the special assessment to service the 2024 bond issue is clearly logically related to properties within the UPRD community though the benefits are more qualitative and generalized. Further, the properties within the UPRD clearly specially benefit from the recreational services provided in the neighborhood, which are for the health, safety, and welfare of the owners and residents. And as the unrefuted appraisal data shows, well-maintained golf course communities tend to have higher property values.
Issue 3 – Due Process
Next, we have considered Matt‘s due process arguments and conclude that he has raised no basis for relief. Generally, notice and the opportunity to be heard are sufficient to meet procedural due process requirements. Fla. Bankers Ass‘n, 176 So. 3d at 1266.12 Here, although Matt does not challenge notice under
However, as to his opportunity to be heard at the April 29 bond validation hearing, Matt asserts it was not a fair one due to what he perceived as Judge Nicholas‘s disrespectful comments to him, refusal to acknowledge his arguments, and entry of final judgment before considering his emergency motion. Matt even sought to disqualify Judge Nicholas.
We first address Matt‘s argument that Judge Nicholas erred in ruling on his unsworn motion to disqualify and denying it as legally
Additionally, Matt‘s motion was untimely under rule 2.330(g) because it was filed more than twenty days after the April 29 hearing. See
Matt‘s remaining due process arguments are based on speculation about whether Judge Nicholas actually reviewed Matt‘s emergency motion to stay and whether Judge Nicholas reviewed exhibits Matt submitted at the April 29 hearing. These arguments
III. CONCLUSION
Finding no error, we affirm the final judgment validating the UPRD‘s 2024 bond issue.
It is so ordered.
COURIEL, C.J., and LABARGA, MUÑIZ, GROSSHANS, and SASSO, JJ., concur.
TANENBAUM, J., did not participate.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court in and for Manatee County
Bond Validations
Edward Nicholas, Judge
Case No. 412024CA000252CAAXMA
Dean K. Matt, University Park, Florida,
for Appellant
Fred E. Moore and Mark Barnebey of Blalock Walters, P.A., Bradenton, Florida; and Jesse R. Butler of Butler Legacy & Litigation, PLLC, Lakewood Ranch, Florida,
for Appellee University Park Recreation District
Notes
- Page 1- lower cased “qualified voters”, as it is not a defined term in the Indenture.
- Page 2- clarified which brackets were referenced, and that the reference to Section 5.04 referred to the First Supplemental Indenture.
- Page 3- removed the Trustee as the party “wishing” to reconcile the inconsistent language, as the Trustee is a neutral party.
- Page 4- clarified that the language enabling this amendment is the same in both the Master Indenture and the First Supplemental Indenture.
- Signature page- updated the name change for the Trustee which had been overlooked.
- This Second Supplemental Indenture shall replace the version previously approved by adoption of Resolution 2024-08.