Alachua County v. Powers

351 So. 2d 32
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedOctober 6, 1977
Docket51465
StatusPublished
Cited by51 cases

This text of 351 So. 2d 32 (Alachua County v. Powers) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Alachua County v. Powers, 351 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 1977).

Opinion

351 So.2d 32 (1977)

ALACHUA COUNTY, a Political Subdivision of the State of Florida, Appellant,
v.
A. Curtis POWERS, Clerk of the Circuit Court of Alachua County, Florida, Appellee.

No. 51465.

Supreme Court of Florida.

October 6, 1977.
Rehearing Denied November 15, 1977.

*35 Norm La Coe, County Atty., Alachua County, Gainesville, for appellant.

Larry G. Turner, Gainesville, for appellee.

Fred W. Baggett, Tallahassee, for amicus curiae Fla. Ass'n of Court Clerks.

William J. Roberts and Wilson W. Wright, Tallahassee, for amicus curiae State Ass'n of County Com'rs.

ADKINS, Justice.

This case arose when the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Alachua County, appellee herein and referred to as the "clerk," sued the Board of County Commissioners of Alachua County, appellant herein and referred to as the "board," seeking a declaratory judgment to clarify his fiscal duties as Clerk of the County Commission. The issues presented by the clerk were to seek clarification of his duties in four capacities: as auditor, accountant, custodian, and investor of county funds. This appeal is from the final judgment.

The trial court construed provisions of the State constitution and initially and directly passed upon the validity of Chapter 71-443, Laws of Florida, a special act relating to the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Alachua County. We have jurisdiction.

The Clerk is a constitutional officer deriving his authority and responsibility from both constitutional and statutory provisions. Security Finance Company v. Gentry, 91 Fla. 1015, 109 So. 220 (1926); Article V, Section 16, Florida Constitution.

Article V, Section 16, Florida Constitution, contains the following provisions:

"There shall be in each county a clerk of the circuit court who shall be selected pursuant to the provisions of Article VIII section 1. Notwithstanding any other provision of the constitution, the duties of the clerk of the circuit court may be divided by special or general law between two officers, one serving as clerk of court and one serving as ex officio clerk of the board of county commissioners, auditor, recorder, and custodian of all county funds."

Article VIII, Section 1(d), Florida Constitution, provides for the election of the clerk of circuit court, along with other officers, and also provides:

"When not otherwise provided by county charter or special law approved by vote of the electors, the clerk of the circuit court shall be ex officio clerk of the board of county commissioners, auditor, recorder and custodian of all county funds."

The trial court was correct in interpreting these two constitutional provisions as prescribing the only means of separating the clerk's judicial functions as clerk of the court from his clerk's county officer functions as auditor, accountant, custodian of county funds and official recorder. The office may be divided by special or general law pursuant to Article V, Section 16, Florida Constitution, or the clerk's county officer functions may be divided by county charter or special law approved by a vote of the electors pursuant to Article VIII, Section 1(d), Florida Constitution. In the absence of either of these two methods, the clerk must perform the dual role prescribed by constitutional mandate.

There is no applicable general law or special law approved by the electors which *36 would vary those duties in Alachua County, and the county is not governed by a county charter. Under these constitutional provisions the clerk is the ex officio clerk of the board of county commissioners, the auditor, recorder and custodian of all county funds.

We first consider the clerk's auditing responsibility. Section 129.09, Florida Statutes (1975), forbids the clerk "acting as county auditor," from signing illegal warrants and provides both personal and criminal liability for violation of this provision. The clerk, as auditor, is required by law to refuse to sign and deliver a county warrant for an unlawful expenditure, even though approved by the board of county commissioners. Mayes Printing Company v. Flowers, 154 So.2d 859 (Fla.1st DCA 1963). Although an appropriation of county funds may serve a county purpose, there must be some type of pre-audit review of the disbursement in order to be sure that the funds will not be used for an unlawful purpose.

Section 136.08, Florida Statutes (1975), provides that the accounts of the board of county commissioners and the account of any bank acting as a depository shall be subject to the inspection and examination of the "county auditor, the auditor general and the department of banking and finance or persons designated by it." Section 11.45(3)(a), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1976), provides for post-audits by the auditor general of accounts and records of "county agencies," which includes the board of county commissioners and the clerk of the circuit court. See Section 11.45(1)(e), Id, defining county agencies. All agencies have the power to have a performance audit or post-audit of their accounts and records by an independent certified public accountant retained by them and paid from their public funds. Section 11.45(3)(a), Id.

The Board, as the governing body of the county, has the power to

"Make investigations of county affairs; inquire into accounts, records, and transactions of any county department, office, or officer; and, for these purposes, require reports from any county officer or employee and the production of official records". Section 125.01(1)(s), Florida Statutes (1975).

In accomplishing this purpose the board also has the power to

"Employ an independent accounting firm to audit any funds, accounts, and financial records of the county and its agencies and governmental subdivisions. Not less than five copies of each complete audit report, with accompanying documents, shall be filed with the clerk of the circuit court and maintained there for public inspection. The clerk shall thereupon forward one complete copy of the audit report with accompanying documents to the Auditor General, who shall retain the same as a public record for ten (10) years from receipt thereof." Section 125.01(1)(x), Florida Statutes (1975).

The trial court correctly determined that the Clerk was to act as county auditor in all auditing functions except when the board employs an independent auditing firm pursuant to Section 125.01(1)(x), Florida Statutes (1975).

Sections 129.07 and 129.08, Florida Statutes (1975), expressly provide civil and criminal sanction against the members of the board of county commissioners for fiscal maladministration. The board says it should not be "blindly" dependent on the clerk for information which may be necessary for proper budget administration, approval of checks and authorization of the chairman of the board to sign such checks. The board refers to White v. Crandon, 116 Fla. 162, 156 So. 303 (1934), where this Court held that county commissioners could be personally liable for funds expended without authority of law. The board also points to Davis, et al. v. Keen, 140 Fla. 764, 192 So. 200 (1939), where the Court said that the board has the power and authority to reject payment of an unlawful account, holding that the statutes imposed a discretionary power or authority on the Board to determine whether or not a claim when presented is a just and lawful account.

*37 No one quarrels with the assertion that the responsibility for pre-auditing is shared by the board and the clerk.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Maloy v. Seminole Cnty.
264 So. 3d 370 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2019)
Hill v. Davis
31 So. 3d 921 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2010)
Brock v. Board of County Commissioners
21 So. 3d 844 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2009)
Grant v. State
832 So. 2d 770 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2002)
Zapo v. Gilreath
779 So. 2d 651 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2001)
Frankenmuth Mut. Ins. Co. v. Magaha
769 So. 2d 1012 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2000)
Nicolai v. Baldwin
715 So. 2d 1161 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1998)
Times Pub. Co. v. Ake
645 So. 2d 1003 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1994)
Ebaugh v. State
623 So. 2d 844 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1993)
Ago
Florida Attorney General Reports, 1986
Ferguson v. State
377 So. 2d 709 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1979)
Pinellas County v. Nelson
362 So. 2d 279 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1978)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
351 So. 2d 32, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alachua-county-v-powers-fla-1977.