LOXAHATCHEE RIVER ECD v. School Bd.
515 So. 2d 217 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A law enacted in violation of the Florida Constitution's single-subject and title requirements is invalid, but this defect is cured upon the law's reenactment and codification into the official Florida Statutes. This cure, however, is not retroactive and does not validate the law for the period between its initial passage and its subsequent codification.
Facts:
- The Loxahatchee River Environmental Control District (District) operates a regional sewage and sanitation treatment facility.
- The Palm Beach County School Board (Board) planned to build a new school within the District's service area.
- As a prerequisite for the right to connect the new school to its wastewater system, the District required the Board to pay certain fees, which the District characterized as utility charges.
- The Board refused to pay the fees, asserting it was exempt under a recent amendment to section 235.26(1), Florida Statutes, which relieved school boards from paying 'impact fees or service availability fees.'
- This dispute arose in the fall of 1981, after the legislative act containing the amendment (Chapter 81-223) was passed but before it was formally reenacted and codified into the official Florida Statutes.
Procedural Posture:
- The dispute over the fees led to litigation in a Florida state trial court.
- The trial court found the statute constitutional and ruled that the School Board was exempt from the fees.
- The Loxahatchee River Environmental Control District, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal.
- The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's decision, upholding the statute's constitutionality.
- The Loxahatchee River Environmental Control District, as petitioner, sought review from the Supreme Court of Florida, which granted jurisdiction.
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 section 235.26(1), Florida Statutes (1981), which exempts public school boards from paying 'impact fees or service availability fees,' violate Article III, section 6 of the Florida Constitution because the title of the enacting law failed to provide specific notice that the exemption applied to utility charges?
Opinions:
Majority - Grimes, J.
No, section 235.26(1) does not violate Article III, section 6 of the Florida Constitution. The title of the enacting law was constitutionally sufficient because it provided adequate notice to a person of average intelligence. While the reenactment and codification of a law into the Florida Statutes cures any defect under Article III, section 6, that cure is not retroactive. Because the dispute arose before codification, the court must assess the title's original sufficiency. The title's reference to modifying the 'State Uniform Building Code' was adequate notice, as impact and service availability fees charged by utilities are not so distinct from other construction-related fees as to require a specific reference to 'utilities' to avoid misleading the public.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies Florida's 'codification rule,' establishing that while codification cures a constitutional title defect, the cure only applies prospectively. This creates a period of invalidity for a defective statute between its passage and codification, impacting any rights or obligations that arose during that time. The ruling also affirms a broad standard for the sufficiency of legislative titles, giving the legislature considerable leeway so long as a title provides enough information to prompt further inquiry. This precedent reinforces the importance of monitoring the legislative process and the subsequent codification of statutes to determine their enforceability.
