School Bd. of Volusia County v. Clayton
691 So.2d 1066, 1997 Fla. LEXIS 307, 22 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 122 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To have standing as a taxpayer to challenge a government action, a party must allege either a special injury distinct from other taxpayers or a constitutional challenge based directly upon the Legislature's taxing and spending power; the 'uniqueness of the particular case' does not create an independent exception to this rule.
Facts:
- The Volusia County School Board sought to acquire property in DeBary, Florida.
- After initiating an eminent domain petition, the Board changed the description of the property it intended to acquire.
- The Board and the property's owner reached a negotiated agreement to purchase the property for over $500,000.
- The agreed purchase price for the property was more than twice the amount of the appraisals recorded in the public record.
- The Board approved the property purchase by a bare majority vote.
- Section 235.054(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1995), requires that if a purchase price for property over $500,000 exceeds the average appraised value, the board must approve it by an extraordinary vote.
- James B. Clayton, a taxpayer, alleged the School Board's purchase did not comply with the statutory requirement for an extraordinary vote.
Procedural Posture:
- The Volusia County School Board filed a petition for eminent domain.
- James B. Clayton filed a petition for writ of mandamus in circuit court, alleging the Board's property purchase did not comply with statutory requirements for an extraordinary vote.
- The circuit court (trial court/court of first instance) dismissed Clayton's petition, finding he lacked standing under North Broward Hospital District v. Fornes because he did not allege a constitutional challenge or a special injury.
- Clayton appealed the circuit court's dismissal to the Fifth District Court of Appeal (intermediate appellate court); Clayton was the appellant, and the School Board of Volusia County was the appellee.
- The Fifth District Court of Appeal, as the intermediate appellate court, reversed the circuit court, holding that Clayton had standing under a 'unique circumstances' exception derived from State ex rel. Clayton v. Board of Regents, and then certified questions of great public importance to the Florida Supreme Court.
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 have standing to challenge a public board's action that allegedly exceeds statutory authority and wastes public money, solely based on the 'uniqueness of the particular case' standard, when the taxpayer does not allege a special injury or a direct constitutional challenge to taxing and spending power?
Opinions:
Majority - Harding, Justice
No, a taxpayer does not have standing to challenge a public board's action based solely on the 'uniqueness of the particular case' standard, even when the action allegedly exceeds statutory authority and wastes public money, without alleging a special injury or a direct constitutional challenge to taxing and spending power. The Court reaffirmed its previous decision in North Broward Hospital District v. Fornes (1985), which established the stringent requirements for taxpayer standing. Under Fornes, standing requires either a 'special injury' distinct from other taxpayers or a 'constitutional challenge' defined as a direct attack upon constitutional grounds based directly on the Legislature's taxing and spending power. An alleged illegal public action that merely increases tax burdens or wastes public money, as a general grievance affecting all taxpayers, does not constitute a 'special injury.' The Court also clarified that its finding of 'unique circumstances' in State ex rel. Clayton v. Board of Regents (1994), where a board member was appointed to a university presidency in violation of common law, was strictly limited to those specific facts and did not create a broad exception to the Fornes standing requirements. Since Clayton did not allege a special injury distinct from other taxpayers or a direct constitutional challenge to taxing and spending powers, he lacks standing.
Dissenting - Shaw, Justice
Justice Shaw dissented from the majority opinion. The provided case text does not include the reasoning for the dissent.
Analysis:
This case significantly reinforces the high bar for taxpayer standing in Florida, making it difficult for individual taxpayers to challenge government actions purely on the basis of alleged statutory violations or wasteful spending that affects all taxpayers equally. By explicitly rejecting the expansion of a 'unique circumstances' exception, the Supreme Court of Florida limits judicial oversight of administrative decisions unless they directly involve the government's constitutional taxing and spending powers or inflict a specific, individualized harm on a taxpayer. This ruling prioritizes preventing a flood of litigation over public funds but also means many alleged instances of government overreach or inefficiency may go unchallenged in court by ordinary citizens.
