Clayton v. School Bd. of Volusia County
696 So.2d 1215 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In Florida, a citizen taxpayer lacks standing to challenge the allegedly illegal acts of elected or appointed officials unless the alleged illegality rises to constitutional proportions, rather than merely violating a state statute.
Facts:
- James B. Clayton is a citizen taxpayer in Volusia County.
- The School Board of Volusia County undertook the acquisition of property.
- Clayton alleged that the School Board improperly acquired property by initiating eminent domain proceedings and subsequently converting to private negotiations for the purchase.
- Clayton further alleged that the School Board paid an amount for the property that, under state statute, should have triggered an "extraordinary vote" requirement.
- Clayton's complaint alleged these actions by the School Board violated a state statute, but did not specifically allege a constitutional violation.
Procedural Posture:
- James B. Clayton filed a complaint against the School Board of Volusia County in a trial court, alleging violations of a state statute regarding property acquisition.
- The trial court dismissed Clayton's complaint.
- Clayton appealed the trial court's dismissal to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
- The Fifth District Court of Appeal initially issued an opinion reversing the trial court's dismissal.
- The School Board of Volusia County appealed the Fifth District's decision to the Florida Supreme Court.
- The Florida Supreme Court reversed the Fifth District Court of Appeal's initial decision, holding that Clayton lacked standing, and remanded the case back to the Fifth District Court of Appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a citizen taxpayer have standing to challenge a school board's actions that allegedly violate a state statute, when those actions do not implicate a constitutional provision?
Opinions:
Majority - Harris, Judge
No, a citizen taxpayer does not have standing to challenge a school board's actions that allegedly violate a state statute unless the illegality rises to constitutional proportions. The court affirmed the dismissal of Clayton's complaint, holding that it was bound by the Florida Supreme Court's reaffirmed holding in North Broward Hospital District v. Fornes. The Fornes precedent dictates that a citizen taxpayer, either individually or as a class representative, lacks standing to challenge even illegal acts of officials unless the illegality is of constitutional magnitude. Since Clayton's complaint alleged only a violation of a state statute, it did not meet the standing requirement. The court acknowledged that this rule creates a unique situation in Florida where there can be a "wrong without a remedy" for statutory violations by public officials, unlike many other jurisdictions. The court suggested that relief for taxpayers might require amending the state constitution or legislative action to create such a cause of action.
Concurring - Cobb, J.
Judge Cobb concurred with the majority opinion.
Concurring in result only - Antoon, J.
Judge Antoon concurred in the result only.
Analysis:
This case underscores the strict and unique limitations on taxpayer standing in Florida, distinguishing it from many other states where taxpayers generally have standing to challenge illegal expenditures of public funds. The decision effectively limits citizens' ability to seek judicial redress for statutory violations by government officials, potentially leaving such 'wrongs without remedies' in the judicial system. It places the onus on constitutional amendment or legislative action to expand taxpayer standing rights, highlighting a significant constraint on judicial oversight of state and local government actions that do not implicate constitutional provisions.
