Wilson v. Palm Beach County Housing Authority
503 So.2d 893 (1987)
Rule of Law:
Revenue bonds issued by a public authority that lacks ad valorem taxing power, and which are secured by a mortgage on the physical property of the project being financed, do not require voter approval because such a mortgage does not constitute an indirect pledge of the taxing power of the state or any political subdivision.
Facts:
- The Palm Beach County Housing Authority was created pursuant to Florida statute.
- The Authority sought to finance the acquisition and construction of low-income housing by issuing revenue bonds.
- The bonds were to be payable solely from revenues generated by the housing projects and earnings from the bond proceeds.
- To secure the bonds, the Authority proposed granting a mortgage on the physical housing projects themselves.
- The Palm Beach County Housing Authority does not have ad valorem taxing authority.
Procedural Posture:
- The Palm Beach County Housing Authority filed an action in a Florida trial court seeking validation of its proposed revenue bonds.
- The trial court entered a final judgment validating the bonds.
- The opponents of the bond issuance (Appellants) filed a direct appeal of the trial court's judgment 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 mortgage security interest on a public housing project, granted by a housing authority that lacks ad valorem taxing power to secure revenue bonds, constitute a pledge of taxing power that requires voter approval under the Florida Constitution?
Opinions:
Majority - Overton, Justice
No, the grant of a mortgage security interest by a housing authority without taxing power does not require voter approval. The court reasoned that since the Palm Beach County Housing Authority has no ad valorem taxing power, and there is no direct or indirect pledge of taxing power from any other government entity, the mortgage does not create a debt or liability of the county or state. The court distinguished this case from prior precedents like Nohrr v. Brevard County, where a 'moral compulsion' to levy taxes might exist to prevent foreclosure on a public institution like a school. Here, the court rejected the argument that the county or state would feel coerced to levy a tax to prevent foreclosure on the low-income housing project, thus concluding the bonds do not require an election. The court explicitly receded from Nohrr to the extent it held otherwise.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies and narrows the 'moral compulsion' or 'coercion' doctrine previously articulated in Nohrr. By holding that a mortgage on a low-income housing project does not create a moral obligation for a taxing authority to prevent foreclosure, the court makes it easier for special purpose authorities without taxing power to finance projects. This ruling facilitates the use of project assets as collateral for revenue bonds without the political and financial hurdle of a public referendum, thereby streamlining financing for public-benefit projects like affordable housing.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Wilson v. Palm Beach County Housing Authority (1987)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"