The 2d DCA entered a decision last month in a long-contested battle between landowners within a special district and the district to force the district to repay special assessments (for maintenance and capital improvements) - Spring Lake v. Tyrell (Spring Lake II).
Here's the interesting thing about these cases: despite the fact that ALL of the parties agreed that none of the improvements made by the District would benefit the plaintiffs' properties, the DCA in Spring Lake 1 had held that the capital improvements portion of the assessment could not be refunded because it had been part of a validated bond.
SO - if a District (of any kind - or a local government) validates a bond for special improvements backed by special assessments against all of the properties in the District and then doesn't construct improvements that benefit some of the properties, the burdened but not benefitted properties can't escape the assessments. Doesn't seem right to me - assessments should be re-worked against the benefitted properties instead. But that's not the law, now.
This is the ONLY case I found that's dead on this point.
Maybe I'm over-reading the precedent and there's some specific aspect of how these bonds were validated that created the result, but I don't think so.
Love to hear any comments on this one.
Use the largest online attorney directory to quickly find detailed profiles of Florida lawyers and law firms in your area.
Thứ Bảy, 3 tháng 4, 2004
Đăng ký:
Đăng Nhận xét (Atom)
Bài đăng phổ biến
-
Sheesh, does anyone have any news of any interest? Does it count that I saw Ervin rockin' some hard-core aviators outside the courthous...
-
I don't know, I feel like we're getting a little Frank Jimenez chronic here, and yet more news keeps breaking. Now it's this , i...
-
stucomplaint I'm still on a high from last night's Bar thingy, so...
-
11th Circuit, 11th Schmircuit, that's what I always say. And I see I'm not alone. On Friday in the closely-watched Checking Overdraf...
-
That old W.C. Fields line is ringing in my head, as the wind kicks up and rip tides batter the coast. I have to be honest, with the emerging...
-
Here's an interesting opinion from Magistrate Judge Torres awarding defendants attorney's fees for opposing a copyright infringemen...
-
Here is the Senate Judiciary Committee agenda (there was a live webcast too). From a well-placed source: He finished – no hard questions- ...
-
In the very long saga of Fort Lauderdale attorney Robert Ingham 's doomed representation of MCS against Essent Healthcare, Judge Seitz ...
-
Hi folks, lots of fun stories floating around today. First, as anyone working at a big firm knows, conflicts checks are a real hassle. Just ...
-
Federal Rule Violation If you have been charged with USCA0024 FEDERAL RULE VIOLATION you can call a Defense Attorney Tampa at 1-877-793-9290...
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét