North Broward Hosp. Dist. v. Fornes
476 So.2d 154, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 437 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Absent a constitutional challenge, a taxpayer must allege a special injury distinct from other taxpayers in the taxing district to have standing to sue to prevent the illegal expenditure of public funds; a mere allegation that the expenditure will increase the taxpayer's burden is insufficient.
Facts:
- North Broward Hospital District (the District), a special taxing district, operates hospitals in Broward County.
- The District's appointed commissioners levy taxes against property owners residing in the district to finance the expansion, operation, and maintenance of these hospitals.
- Sharon T. Fornes owns property within the District and pays taxes to the District.
- The District decided to expand North Broward Hospital and developed specifications for the project, inviting competitive bids from the public, as required by its charter for contracts exceeding $5,000.
- Fornes alleged that the specifications for the structural precast concrete portion of the project set forth criteria that effectively limited the number of qualified suppliers and permitted favoritism in the bidding process.
- A contract was awarded for the expansion project.
- Fornes alleged that because the specifications eliminated competition and permitted favoritism, the contract award was not the result of lawful competitive bidding procedures and prevented the project from being completed at the lowest possible cost to the taxpayers.
Procedural Posture:
- Sharon Fornes sued the North Broward Hospital District, requesting a temporary and permanent injunction to restrain the District from carrying out the terms of the contract and to order a rebidding.
- The District moved to dismiss Fornes's complaint, arguing she lacked standing because she failed to allege either a special injury distinct from other taxpayers or a constitutional challenge.
- The trial court granted the District's motion to dismiss.
- Fornes appealed the dismissal to the Fourth District Court of Appeal.
- The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's dismissal, holding that Fornes, as a taxpayer, had standing, and certified a question of great public importance to the Supreme Court of Florida.
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 taxpayer who alleges that the taxing authority is acting illegally in expending public funds, which will increase his tax burden, have standing to sue to prevent such expenditure, or is it necessary that he suffer some other special injury distinct from other taxpayers or launch a constitutional attack upon the taxing authority's action in order to have standing?
Opinions:
Majority - Alderman, J.
No, a taxpayer who alleges that the taxing authority is acting illegally in expending public funds, which will increase his tax burden, does not have standing to sue unless he suffers a special injury distinct from other taxpayers or makes a constitutional challenge. The Supreme Court of Florida quashed the district court's holding, reaffirming its long-standing precedent that a mere increase in taxes does not confer standing upon a taxpayer to challenge a governmental expenditure. Citing Henry L. Doherty & Co. v. Joachim and Department of Revenue v. Markham, the Court reiterated that a taxpayer must allege a special injury distinct from other taxpayers in the taxing unit. The only exception recognized is for a constitutional challenge to the Legislature's taxing and spending power, as established in Department of Administration v. Horne. The Court rejected policy arguments for modifying this rule, stating that these rules represent a reasonable effort to ensure lawful exercise of taxing and spending authority without unduly hampering government operations, citing Paul v. Blake. Since Fornes did not allege any special injury distinct from other taxpayers, she lacked standing to sue.
Dissenting - Ehrlich, J.
Yes, a taxpayer who alleges that the taxing authority is acting illegally in expending public funds, which will increase his tax burden, has standing to sue because the need to provide funds for illegal expenditures constitutes a special injury. Justice Ehrlich argued that the majority's decision insulates government officials from accountability and recedes from over a century of case law that recognized taxpayer standing when illegal expenditures would increase their tax burden. He cited numerous cases, including Lanier v. Padgett, Peck v. Spencer, Chamberlain v. City of Tampa, and Crawford v. Gilchrist, to demonstrate that Florida courts previously recognized that taxpayers have a right to prevent illegal disposition of public funds. He contended that Rickman v. Whitehurst recognized improper expenditure of public funds as a special injury. Justice Ehrlich distinguished Henry L. Doherty & Co. v. Joachim as a land-use case, not an illegal expenditure case, and asserted that the 'distinct from other taxpayers' requirement in Department of Revenue v. Markham was an unsupported judicial creation. He also argued that the majority's public policy argument contradicts the legislative intent for broad public access and transparency under the Sunshine Act and Public Records Act.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies and solidifies the strict standing requirements for taxpayers challenging government expenditures in Florida. By requiring a 'special injury distinct from other taxpayers' for non-constitutional challenges, the court places a high burden on individual citizens seeking to litigate governmental waste or inefficiency. This ruling likely limits judicial oversight of routine governmental contract and bidding processes, making it more challenging for taxpayers to hold local authorities accountable unless a clear constitutional violation or a unique personal harm can be demonstrated. The decision underscores a judicial policy of balancing public accountability with the need for government to operate without excessive litigation, potentially leading to fewer such challenges in Florida courts.
