Judges: Bill McCollum, Attorney General
Filed Date: 11/5/2010
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
Dear Ms. Craig:
On behalf of the Dorcas Fire District, you ask the following question:
May the Dorcas Fire District purchase a fire truck under an installment agreement in which the lender holds a lien against the fire truck?
In sum:
While the Dorcas Fire District is authorized to purchase equipment by an installment sales contract if funds are available to pay the current year's installments on the equipment and to pay the amounts due that year on all other installments and indebtedness, it may not use an installment contract which creates a purchase lien in favor of the seller in the event of a default by the district.
You state that the Dorcas Fire District was created by section 2005-331, Laws of Florida. The district is an independent fire control district operating pursuant to the special act and the provisions of Chapter
The district has contracted for the purchase of a new fire truck. The truck manufacturer will finance the truck through a promissory note secured by a "Purchase Lien." Should there be a default in the payments, under the agreement, the lender has the right to demand payment in full or return of the truck as originally delivered, as well as all expenses incurred in collecting the monies or the fire truck.
Section 6, Chapter
"purchase equipment by an installment sales contract if funds are available to pay the current year's installments on the equipment and to pay the amounts due that year on all other installments and indebtedness."2
The Legislature, therefore, has specifically authorized the Dorcas Fire District to purchase equipment using an installment sales contract if there are sufficient funds to pay the current year's installments on the equipment and to pay all other installments and indebtedness. The installment contract you propose for the purchase of a fire truck, however, contains a "purchase lien" which creates a security interest allowing the seller/lender to recover the property in the event of a default.
As a statutorily created entity, the fire district has only such powers and authority as have been expressly granted by law or may be necessarily implied therefrom in order to carry out an expressly granted power.3 Any reasonable doubt as to the lawful existence of a particular power sought to be exercised must be resolved against the exercise thereof.4 The implied powers accorded to administrative agencies must be indispensable to powers expressly granted, that is, those powers that are necessary or fairly or reasonably implied as an incident to those powers.5
While there is clear authority for the fire district to enter into an installment sales contract in order to purchase equipment, nothing in the district's enabling act or in Chapter
Moreover, this office and Florida courts have consistently found that the creation of a security interest with the right of foreclosure or recovery in the event of default in an installment purchase of equipment or real property by a county or municipality violates section
Accordingly, it is my opinion that while the Dorcas Fire District is authorized to purchase a fire truck under an installment agreement, absent referendum approval, it may not use an installment contract in excess of twelve months which creates a purchase lien allowing the seller to recover the truck or demand full payment in the event the district defaults on the loan.
Sincerely,
Bill McCollum Attorney General
BM/tals
And see s.
"Counties, school districts, municipalities, special districts and local governmental bodies with taxing powers may issue bonds, certificates of indebtedness or any form of tax anticipation certificates, payable from ad valorem taxation and maturing more than twelve months after issuance only:
(a) to finance or refinance capital projects authorized by law and only when approved by vote of the electors who are owners of freeholds therein not wholly exempt from taxation; or
(b) to refund outstanding bonds and interest and redemption premium thereon at a lower net average interest cost rate."
Frankenmuth Mut. Ins. Co. v. Magaha , 769 So. 2d 1012 ( 2000 )
GARDINIER INC. v. Florida Dept. of Pollution Control , 1974 Fla. App. LEXIS 8670 ( 1974 )
Nohrr v. Brevard County Educational Fac. Auth. , 247 So. 2d 304 ( 1971 )
State v. Brevard County , 539 So. 2d 461 ( 1989 )
City of Cape Coral v. GAC Utilities, Inc., of Florida , 281 So. 2d 493 ( 1973 )