Peters v. Meeks
163 So. 2d 753 (1964)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state constitution serves as a limitation on the plenary power of the state legislature, not a grant of power. The removal of a constitutional provision that formerly authorized the legislature to act does not create a prohibition against such action; legislative power remains unless expressly or impliedly forbidden by the state or federal constitution.
Facts:
- In 1944, Florida voters approved a constitutional amendment that removed a clause from Article VIII, Section 5, which had previously stated that the legislature would prescribe the powers, duties, and compensation of county commissioners.
- Frederick C. Peters and others (appellants) owned property in Broward County, Florida.
- The Broward County Board of County Commissioners convened as a Board of Equalization to review the 1961 tax assessment roll.
- The Board published notice on July 19, 1961, for a meeting scheduled to begin on August 2, 1961.
- Appellants' counsel filed a complaint with the Board on July 31, 1961, and a second one on August 11, 1961, challenging their property tax assessment.
- A deputy clerk informed appellants' counsel that he must appear on the afternoon of August 11 to be heard, as the Board intended to conclude its work.
- Appellants' counsel refused to appear on August 11, stating his personal schedule would not permit it until the following week, and insisted the Board wait for him.
- The Board proceeded to deny the appellants' complaint due to their failure to appear and support it.
Procedural Posture:
- Frederick C. Peters and others (appellants) filed a lawsuit in the Chancery Court of Broward County against the county Tax Collector and the state Comptroller (appellees).
- The suit sought to invalidate the entire 1961 Broward County tax roll on constitutional grounds.
- Both parties filed motions for summary decree.
- The chancellor (trial court) heard arguments and entered a final decree for the appellees, upholding the constitutionality of the challenged statutes and the validity of the tax roll.
- The appellants filed a direct appeal of the chancellor's final decree 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 the 1944 deletion of the clause 'The powers, duties and compensation of such county commissioners shall be prescribed by law' from Article VIII, Section 5 of the Florida Constitution invalidate subsequent statutes granting powers and duties to county commissioners, thereby rendering a county's tax roll void?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Thomas
No. The deletion of the clause did not invalidate the statutes granting powers to county commissioners. State constitutions are limitations upon the inherent power of the state legislature, not grants of power. Unlike the Federal Constitution, which grants specific powers, a state legislature may enact any law not expressly or impliedly forbidden by the state or federal constitution. The removal of permissive language does not create a prohibition, and thus the legislature retains its authority to empower county commissions. Furthermore, other constitutional provisions, such as the one authorizing counties to levy taxes, presuppose that county commissions will have the necessary powers to function. The court also rejected the appellants' due process claim, finding they had actual notice and were offered an opportunity to be heard, which they declined for personal convenience. The attempt to bring a class action suit was also properly denied because the complaint was too broad and failed to describe the class with the required certainty.
Analysis:
This case solidifies a fundamental principle of Florida constitutional law: the legislature possesses plenary power unless specifically limited by the constitution. The court's decision prevented the invalidation of countless statutes and the resulting collapse of county governance across the state. By distinguishing state constitutions (as limitations on power) from the federal constitution (as a grant of power), the opinion provides a crucial framework for interpreting legislative authority. This precedent ensures that the removal of permissive constitutional text is not construed as an affirmative prohibition, thus providing stability and continuity to state and local government operations.
