Dean K. Matt v. State of Florida

• Court: Supreme Court of Florida
• Decided: July 9, 2026
• Docket: SC2024-0990
• Status: Published

Opinion

Supreme Court of Florida ____________

No. SC2024-0990 ____________

DEAN K. MATT, Appellant,

vs.

STATE OF FLORIDA, et al., Appellees.

July 9, 2026

FRANCIS, J.

Appellant, Dean K. Matt, appeals the final judgment validating

the University Park Recreation District’s 2024 bond issue, which

was approved via referendum by a majority of Matt’s fellow

residents to improve the neighborhood’s recreational services. We

have jurisdiction 1 and affirm the bond validation final judgment.

1. Art. V, § 3(b)(2), Fla. Const. I. BACKGROUND

The University Park Recreation District

Appellee, the University Park Recreation District (“UPRD”), is a

special, independent recreation district that was established in

2018 under chapters 189 and 418, Florida Statutes, 2 and by

Manatee County Ordinance Number 18-29 (effective August 2,

2018). The purpose of creating the UPRD as an independent

recreation district was to purchase, maintain, and improve the

University Park Country Club, including its clubhouse, twenty-

seven-hole golf course, and other recreational facilities. See

Manatee County, Fla., Ordinance No. 18-29 (Aug. 2, 2018); see also

2. See § 189.011(1)-(2), Fla. Stat. (2018) (noting the Legislature’s specific intent that “independent special districts shall only be created by legislative authorization” and its findings that “special districts serve a necessary and useful function by providing services to residents and property in the state” and that “special districts operate to serve a public purpose and that this is best secured by certain minimum standards of accountability”); § 189.03(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2018) (noting the State’s policy that “independent special districts may be used by the private and public sectors, as authorized by state law, to manage, own, operate, construct, and finance basic capital infrastructure, facilities, and services”); §§ 418.20, .24, Fla. Stat. (2018) (authorizing each municipality and county to create recreation districts; providing that a recreation district’s charter may be created or amended by filing an ordinance).

-2- § 418.22(3), Fla. Stat. (2018) (listing powers a charter may grant a

recreation district, including the power to “acquire, purchase,

construct, improve, and equip recreational facilities of all types”).

Ordinance 18-29 contains specific legislative findings

establishing that the UPRD “serves a public purpose.” Ordinance

18-29 at 2. Among those findings, Ordinance 18-29 provides that

“[t]he creation of the UPRD is the best available alternative for

delivering . . . recreational services and facilities because it provides

flexible funding mechanisms to assure the long-term availability of

recreational facilities and services for the residents of the UPRD.”

Id. The legislative findings also establish that “[t]he UPRD is

amenable to separate special district government” based on a vote

by the majority of the “electors” (one vote per either owner or

resident); that “[a]ll of the territory within the UPRD will be

benefitted by the long-term operation and maintenance of the

recreational facilities by the UPRD”; and that “[t]he health and well-

being of the public within the UPRD will be benefitted by the

establishment of the UPRD.” Id.

2019 Bond Issue

To carry out the primary purpose of the UPRD—to purchase

-3- the University Park Country Club and finance its maintenance and

improvements—the UPRD, through its duly elected Board of

Supervisors (“Board”), 3 was authorized to issue bonds following a

referendum. 4 And in November 2019, the UPRD was authorized by

referendum to do a bond issue and entered a Master Trust

Indenture with Trustee, U.S. Bank Trust Company, National

Association (successor trustee to U.S. Bank, National Association).

Though the Master Indenture is not included in the limited record

in this appeal, UPRD Resolution 2024-08 explains (and there is no

dispute) that “the provisions of the Master Indenture contemplate

that Bonds can be issued in one or more Series or sub-Series

3. The electors within the UPRD voted to establish the “Board of Supervisors,” a five-person board authorized to govern the UPRD and carry out the powers given to it under section 418.22 and Ordinance 18-29.

4. See § 418.22(4), (7), Fla. Stat. (listing powers a charter may grant a recreation district, including the power to issue bonds secured by ad valorem taxes as well as revenue bonds “and other revenues” after a referendum, and “all further or additional powers as the governing body of the municipality or county establishing the district may deem necessary or useful in order to exercise the powers”); Ordinance 18-29 at 7, 9 (authorizing UPRD to additionally issue bonds secured by non-ad valorem assessments after a referendum).

-4- pursuant to one or more Supplemental Indentures, with the

consent of qualified voters.” UPRD Resol. 2024-08 at 2 (Jan. 12,

2024). This includes but is “not limited to, the Series 2019 Project,

and that such Series or sub-Series of Bonds, whether issued at the

same time or not, can be separately secured by Non-ad Valorem

Assessments imposed by separate assessment proceedings.” Id.

Thus, for the 2019 bond issue, a first supplemental indenture

was executed. As relevant to this case, section 5.04, entitled

“Additional Bonds,” contained bracketed language indicating there

would be no further bond issues after the 2019 bond issue. That

section states:

The Issuer covenants not to issue any other Bonds or other debt obligations secured by the Series 2019 Non-Ad Valorem Assessments. [In addition, the Issuer covenants not to issue any other Bonds or debt obligations for capital projects, secured by Non-Ad Valorem Assessments on the assessable lands within the District that are subject to the Series 2019 Non-Ad Valorem Assessments. Such covenant shall not prohibit the Issuer from issuing refunding Bonds, or to finance any other capital project that is necessary to remediate any natural disaster, catastrophic damage or failure with respect to the Series 2019 Project.] [To be Discussed].

(Brackets and emphasis in original.) 5

5. To be clear, section 5.04’s “[To be Discussed]” language was included in the original 2019 supplemental indenture.

-5- The aggregate principal amount issued in the Series 2019

bonds was $24,000,000. The 2019 bond issue was validated on

September 16, 2019, in the Twelfth Judicial Circuit Court in case

number 2019-CA-000845, and no appeal was taken.

This Case: The 2024 Bond Issue

Matt purchased a home within the UPRD in May 2021 and

reviewed section 5.04 of the first supplemental indenture before

making his purchase. As he made clear throughout this litigation,

his expectation was that there would be no further bond issues.

But the Board proposed a 2024 bond issue. Matt objected, raising

the bracketed language in section 5.04.

Specifically, in November 2023, the Board passed Resolution

2024-01 expressing its interest in another bond issue in the

amount of $21,000,000 upon approval of the electors by

referendum. The bonds would fund a capital improvement project

to “build and expand certain facilities and fix certain infrastructure

needs.” UPRD Resol. 2024-01, Ex. A (Nov. 3, 2023). The Board

specifically listed the items to be added, fixed, or improved, along

with the estimated costs, in the project description attached to the

-6- resolution:

Id.

Another resolution was passed in December 2023, in which

the Board adopted an updated Master Assessment Methodology

report (“Methodology report”). UPRD Resol. 2024-07, Ex. B (Dec. 8,

2023). In the Methodology report, the special benefits to be

conferred by the proposed 2024 bond issue on the UPRD property

owners were analyzed in section 1.6. Id. And section 1.6 described

those benefits—the improvement of recreational facilities—generally

in terms of increasing and preserving property values associated

with a golf course community. Id.

The referendum vote on the proposed 2024 bond issue was set

for January 16, 2024. In the meantime, the Board conducted

meetings and town halls with the residents, at which Matt seems to

have led the charge in opposition, arguing that the section 5.04

bracketed language barred further bond issues. He also challenged

-7- the Methodology report, arguing that the “special benefits” finding

must be supported by a monetary value under this Court’s decision

in City of Boca Raton v. State, 595 So. 2d 25 (Fla. 1992). And

finally, he challenged the Methodology report on the basis that it

did not reflect the overall cost and how the special benefits would

outweigh them.

Ultimately, the Board heard Matt’s concerns and took steps to

correct and clarify the section 5.04 bracketed language in the 2019

supplement. On January 12, 2024, four days before the scheduled

referendum vote, the Board passed Resolution 2024-08 to correct

the first supplemental indenture and authorize a second

supplement to the Master Indenture. The Board cited its authority

in section 13.01 of the Master Indenture to amend the first

supplemental indenture without the consent of the bondholders

because the “amendments do not adversely affect the rights and

remedies of such Bondholders.” Resol. 2024-08 at 3. Instead, the

Board said that the amendments are meant to “cure any ambiguity

or to cure, correct or supplement any defective provision (whether

because of any inconsistency with any other provision in the Master

Indenture or otherwise) in the First Supplemental Indenture.” Id.

-8- Resolution 2024-08 then clarified that the bracketed

formatting of section 5.04 and the bolded “[To be Discussed]”

language was inserted “during the period when two lawsuits were

pending against the [UPRD], one challenging the formation of the

[UPRD] and one contesting the validation of the Series 2019

Bonds . . . in case it would be useful to the [UPRD] in connection

with any settlement discussions.” Resol. 2024-08 at 2. The

resolution also explained that the bracketed language was never

“agreed upon by the [UPRD], whether before or after the resolution

of the lawsuits, for inclusion in any [s]ection 5.04” nor “intended to

be inserted in any final [s]ection 5.04 of the First Supplemental

Indenture.” Id. Further, the resolution explained that the

bracketed language in section 5.04 conflicted with the Master

Indenture: “[T]he Master Indenture and the Official Statement,

dated November 13, 2019 . . . relating to the public offering of the

Series 2019 Bonds contemplated that the District may issue

additional Bonds in the future secured by separate assessments on

the same benefitted properties . . . .” Id.

Ultimately, Resolution 2024-08 set out the following bolded,

underlined, and struck-through amendment to section 5.04

-9- governing “Additional Bonds”:

The Issuer covenants not to issue any other Bonds or debt obligations secured by the Series 2019 Non-Ad Valorem Assessments. [In addition, the Issuer covenants not to issue any other Bonds or debt obligations for capital projects, secured by Non-Ad Valorem Assessments on the assessable lands within the District that are subject to the Series 2019 Non-Ad Valorem Assessments. Such covenant shall not prohibit the Issuer from issuing refunding Bonds, or to finance any other capital project that is necessary to remediate any natural disaster, catastrophic damage or failure with respect to the Series 2019 Project.] [To be Discussed] Notwithstanding the foregoing covenant, the Issuer may, pursuant to authority granted by the Master Indenture, issue additional Bonds secured by Non-Ad Valorem Assessments to finance a Project specially benefitting District Lands, including District Lands that are subject to the Series 2019 Non-Ad Valorem Assessments.

Id. at 3-4.

On January 16, 2024, the referendum was held and the 2024

bond issue passed by a vote of 579 (yes) to 363 (no). See UPRD

Resol. 2024-11 (Jan. 16, 2024). The next day, the Board passed

Resolution 2024-12 authorizing the 2024 bond issue and counsel to

seek validation in the Twelfth Judicial Circuit Court for Manatee

County. See UPRD Resol. 2024-12 (Jan. 17, 2024).

Bond Validation Proceedings

On February 14, 2024, the UPRD filed its complaint for bond

- 10 - validation. The complaint narrowly focused on the UPRD’s

authority to issue the 2024 bond series and did not mention the

issue concerning the bracketed section 5.04 language. The circuit

court issued its order to show cause on February 28, 2024.

Matt filed his answer on April 23, 2024. First, Matt asserted

that the bracketed section 5.04 language acted as a bar to the 2024

bond issue. Second, Matt asserted that the UPRD did not meet its

burden under this Court’s decision in City of Boca Raton to show

special benefits.

Between the complaint and Matt’s answer, however, on March

8, 2024, the Board passed Resolution 2024-13, which corrected

minor technical issues in Resolution 2024-08 requested by the

Trustee. 6 See UPRD Resol. 2024-13 (Mar. 8, 2024). In his April 23

6. According to the agenda from the Board’s March 8 meeting, Resolution 2024-13 made the following changes:

Page 1- lower cased “qualified voters”, as it is not a defined term in the Indenture. Page 2- clarified which brackets were referenced, and that the reference to Section 5.04 referred to the First Supplemental Indenture. Page 3- removed the Trustee as the party “wishing” to reconcile the inconsistent language, as the Trustee is a neutral party.

- 11 - answer—as well as in his later filed post-hearing emergency motion

to stay—Matt complained about the preparation of two different

versions of Resolution 2024-13, as well as the two different versions

of the second supplement to the Master Indenture. As to

Resolution 2024-13 that was passed on March 8, he pointed out

inconsistencies in the dates: the unexecuted version reflects it was

passed on March 22, 2024; whereas the executed version contains

a scrivener’s error as to the date it was passed, stating:

“PASSED . . . this 8th day of January, March 2024.” Similarly, he

pointed out inconsistencies in the dates for the second supplement

to the Master Indenture: the unexecuted version has a March 1,

2024, effective date, whereas the executed version had a January 1,

2024, effective date. Matt expressed his view in his answer that the

differing dates demonstrate sketchy backdating. And later in his

post-hearing emergency motion to stay, Matt went further, claiming

Page 4- clarified that the language enabling this amendment is the same in both the Master Indenture and the First Supplemental Indenture. Signature page- updated the name change for the Trustee which had been overlooked. This Second Supplemental Indenture shall replace the version previously approved by adoption of Resolution 2024-08.

- 12 - the differing dates showed the Board engaged in fraudulent

behavior.

The validation hearing was held on April 29, 2024. 7 At the

hearing, the UPRD submitted the Methodology report, which was

admitted into evidence, and called its author, Kevin Plenzler, to

testify. 8 As to special benefits, Mr. Plenzler testified that “the

continued enhancement of the recreational facilities of UPRD will

create special benefits peculiar to and based on the logical

relationship to the assessable properties in UPRD because those

recreational facilities are an integral part of the University Park

development.” As to allocation methodology, he testified that “given

. . . the wide range of home values within UPRD, . . . this was done

on a percentage comparison basis to show that the growth in home

values exceeds the cost per unit and that this is reasonable given

7. Because no court reporter was present at the validation hearing, the parties recreated the proceedings through a “Statement of Evidence or Proceedings” under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.200(b)(5), which was approved by Judge Edward Nicholas, the circuit judge who presided over the hearing, on August 30, 2024.

8. Mr. Plenzler is the director of PFM Financial Advisors, LLC.

- 13 - that reinvestment in the broader club assets regardless of any one

persons’ specific use of an amenity will protect and/or cast value to

all properties on a relative basis.”

During Matt’s cross-examination of Mr. Plenzler, Matt

conceded the fair apportionment prong under the City of Boca Raton

decision, agreeing it was fair and reasonable, but pressed Mr.

Plenzler on how the special benefits increase the market values of

the UPRD properties. Mr. Plenzler responded that Florida law does

not require a regression analysis or mathematical precision. He

also explained that the Methodology report “demonstrates that

special benefits exceed total burden of debt” and referred to section

1.6, “where . . . his analysis showed that ‘[s]ince 2017, UPRD

property values . . . have increased by 37.5% based on data via the

Manatee County Property Appraiser.’ ” He further stated that the

proposed assessments would, on average, amount to 2.73% of the

2022 market values of the homes.

Matt also testified at the hearing, primarily presenting the

arguments asserted in his answer. Over a relevancy objection, the

circuit court admitted all of Matt’s exhibits, including a copy of

section 5.04 and its bracketed language from the 2019 supplement

- 14 - and video segments of his appearances at the hearings and town

halls before the Board.

Though the circuit court stated that it would review Matt’s

exhibits before entering final judgment, it orally announced at the

end of the hearing that it found the bond issue to be valid.

On May 13, 2024, Matt filed an emergency motion to stay the

final judgment. In his motion to stay, as already mentioned, he

took issue with the two different versions of Resolution 2024-13

and alleged that the UPRD engaged in possibly fraudulent and

illegal activity.

The final judgment validating the bonds was issued the next

day, on May 14. The circuit court concluded that the UPRD had

the authority to issue the 2024 bonds and that the special benefits

exceeded the total burden of debt based on Mr. Plenzler’s testimony,

which the court deemed “persuasive, compelling, factually

supported and largely unrebutted.” The final judgment does not

address Matt’s arguments concerning the bracketed section 5.04

language.

Postjudgment Proceedings

Matt’s motion for stay was denied on May 15, one day after

- 15 - entry of the final judgment validating the 2024 bond issue. Matt

moved for rehearing on May 24, which was denied on June 4.

Matt also filed an unsworn motion to disqualify the circuit

court judge, Judge Edward Nicholas, on May 24, more than twenty

days after the April 29 bond validation hearing. As grounds, he

asserted that Judge Nicholas should be disqualified because he

rendered the May 14 final judgment before considering Matt’s May

13 motion for an emergency stay and without considering all of

Matt’s exhibits from the April 29 hearing, including video recordings

that were admitted into evidence. Additionally, Matt asserted that

Judge Nicholas demonstrated prejudice toward him during the

hearing by treating him disrespectfully, alleging that “[t]wice during

the Hearing, Judge Nicholas went on five-minute soliloquies/rants

and lectured Defendant in a rude, sarcastic tone saying

(paraphrasing) ‘No one is forcing you to stay in University Park and

if you don’t like it you should move to Myakka (City).’ ”

Judge Nicholas entered an order denying Matt’s motion as

legally insufficient under Florida Rule of General Practice and

Judicial Administration 2.330(c) because it was unsworn and,

alternatively, was not accompanied by a supporting affidavit.

- 16 - This Appeal

Matt now raises three issues on appeal. First, he asserts the

final judgment must be reversed because the UPRD lacked

authority under the bracketed language in section 5.04 to impose

another special assessment on the residential properties already

servicing the 2019 bond issue. Second, Matt asserts that the UPRD

failed to meet its burden at the hearing of proving the residential

properties to be assessed would derive a special benefit outweighing

the amount of the assessment pledged to repay the 2024 bond

issue. Finally, Matt asserts the circuit court violated his due

process right to a fair hearing by exhibiting prejudice toward him

and failing to review his exhibits and emergency motion before

entering final judgment. For the reasons explained below, we

affirm.

II. ANALYSIS

Scope and Standard of Review of Bond Validation Judgments

The following rules and standard of review apply to both

issues 1 (the UPRD’s authority) and 2 (special benefit to assessed

properties), so we discuss those issues together.

Chapter 75, Florida Statutes, governs the validation of bonds

- 17 - and provides that a public body may determine its authority to

incur bonded debt by filing a complaint in circuit court. § 75.02,

Fla. Stat. Prior to filing this complaint, the public body must hold a

referendum and show that the results are in favor of the issuance of

such bonds. § 75.03, Fla. Stat. The circuit court has jurisdiction

to determine the validity of the bonds and must issue an order

requiring interested parties to appear at a hearing to show why the

complaint should not be granted and the bonds validated. § 75.05,

Fla. Stat. At the hearing, the circuit court determines all questions

of law and fact and renders a final judgment regarding the validity

of the bonds. § 75.07, Fla. Stat. Any party dissatisfied with the

final judgment may appeal to this Court within the time and

manner prescribed by the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure.

§ 75.08, Fla. Stat.

On appeal, the scope of this Court’s review in bond validation

proceedings is generally limited to three issues: “(1) whether the

public body has authority to issue the subject bonds; (2) whether

the purpose of the obligation is legal; and (3) whether bond

issuance complies with the requirements of law.” Fla. Bankers

Ass’n v. Fla. Dev. Fin. Corp., 176 So. 3d 1258, 1265 (Fla. 2015).

- 18 - “[T]he function of a validation proceeding is merely to settle the

basic validity of the securities and the power of the issuing agency

to act in the premises. Its objective is to put in repose any question

of law or fact affecting the validity of the bonds.” Keys Citizens for

Responsible Gov’t, Inc. v. Fla. Keys Aqueduct Auth. (Keys Citizens),

795 So. 2d 940, 947 (Fla. 2001) (quoting State v. Manatee Cnty. Port

Auth., 171 So. 2d 169, 171 (Fla. 1965)).

The circuit court’s order “comes to the Court with a

presumption of correctness,” and “[t]he appellant has the burden of

demonstrating that the record and evidence [fail] to support the

[bond issuer] and the [circuit] court’s conclusions.” Fla. Bankers

Ass’n, 176 So. 3d at 1265-66 (some alterations in original) (quoting

Donovan v. Okaloosa County, 82 So. 3d 801, 805 (Fla. 2012)). This

Court reviews the circuit court’s factual findings for competent,

substantial evidence and its legal conclusions de novo. Id. at 1266.

Issue 1 – Authority to Issue the 2024 Bonds

Matt argues that the UPRD lacked authority to conduct the

referendum because the bracketed section 5.04 language proposing

to prohibit additional bonds was still in effect and legally binding at

the time the UPRD expressed interest in holding a referendum on

- 19 - the 2024 bond issue. He further argues that the referendum was

premature because the section 5.04 language had not yet been

cured when the referendum was held. Finally, he argues that the

circuit court erred in failing to address the section 5.04 language.

Given the limited scope of bond validation proceedings,

however, we find no error in the circuit court’s order concluding

that the UPRD has the authority to issue the 2024 bonds.

As a foundational point, the circuit court properly found that

the UPRD, as an independent recreation district, had authority to

issue bonds under chapter 418, Florida Statutes, and Manatee

County Ordinance 18-29. The very purpose of such districts is to

essentially be statutorily authorized “financing vehicles.” See State

v. Sunrise Lakes Phase II Special Recreation Dist., 383 So. 2d 631,

633 (Fla. 1980) (recognizing that “recreation districts are essentially

financing vehicles which allow residents of a limited geographic area

to provide for improvements that substantially benefit the residents

in the district” and “[t]o finance these facilities, the charter of the

recreation district may grant many powers including the power to

issue bonds”).

And the circuit court did not err in specifically determining

- 20 - that the UPRD had the authority to hold a referendum under

section 75.03, Florida Statutes, to authorize the 2024 bond issue.

Under section 75.03, the referendum is the first step—and in fact a

condition precedent—to determining a district’s authority to issue

bonds through the validation process:

As a condition precedent to filing of a complaint for the validation of bonds . . . the . . . district desiring to issue them shall cause an election to be held to authorize the issuance . . . and show prima facie that the election was in favor of the issuance . . . .

§ 75.03, Fla. Stat.

In rejecting a similar prematurity argument, this Court in

Florida Bankers Ass’n elaborated on why determining a district’s

authority is the first step in a bond validation proceeding under

another provision of chapter 75, section 75.02:

Section 75.02, Florida Statutes, expressly states that the plaintiff in a bond validation proceeding “may determine its authority by law to issue bonds.” This presupposes that the bonds will not be issued and specific payment provisions enacted until after the validation proceeding. [The district] has statutory authority and a properly enacted resolution to issue the bonds and to seek a determination of the validity of the bond issue before it does so.

176 So. 3d at 1267 (emphasis added) (citation omitted). In other

words, without a majority of the UPRD owners or residents voting

- 21 - for the bond issue, there would be no bond issue to validate as it

would have been defeated at the referendum stage.

Here, the record reflects the UPRD complied with sections

75.02 and 75.03 and the referendum passed. Thus, Matt has not

demonstrated that the circuit court erred in concluding the UPRD

was authorized by referendum (as a condition precedent) and by

law to issue the 2024 bonds.

Matt, however, wants to tie the hands of the UPRD with the

first supplemental indenture’s bracketed language proposing to

prohibit further bond issues and have the referendum declared

illegal. But as noted above, Matt has this backwards: under

chapter 75, the issue of authority comes first and, thus, necessarily

required a referendum. Otherwise, without the referendum, there

would be no authorized bond issue necessitating the bond

validation process.

As to whether the bracketed language in section 5.04 barred

any further bond issue, we have said that “[s]ubsumed within the

inquiry as to whether the public body has the authority to issue the

subject bond is the legality of the financing agreement upon which

the bond is secured.” Id. at 1266 (quoting Keys Citizens, 795 So. 2d

- 22 - at 946). But while the legality of a financial agreement itself is part

of the limited scope of review on appeal, Matt does not challenge the

legality of the entire financial agreement, i.e., the 2019 Master

Indenture (a copy of which was not supplied by the parties), nor

does he challenge the legality of the first supplemental indenture

containing the bracketed section 5.04 language. As we explain,

Matt’s arguments about the effect of the bracketed language lack

merit in any event, so we need not decide whether this aspect of his

challenge falls within the scope of what our precedents have

referred to as “the legality of a financial agreement.”

Even if Matt’s challenge only to the bracketed section 5.04

language is within the scope of this Court’s review, Resolution

2024-08 makes clear that the bracketed language was never

adopted, and the resolution itself authorized a second supplemental

indenture to amend and cure this language. Notably, Resolution

2024-08 was adopted before the referendum was held, and the

second supplemental indenture was executed before the bond

validation hearing. Further, Matt does not dispute the UPRD’s

finding in the resolution that the Master Indenture contemplates

further bond issues. And though Matt takes issue with the order in

- 23 - which the Board acted in passing these resolutions, he has not

demonstrated that it lacked the authority to do so.

Thus, it appears the Board had the power to correct the 2019

first supplemental indenture by issuing a second supplemental

indenture to ensure there was nothing encumbering the special

assessment pledged for the repayment and marketability of the

2024 bond issue. And because the UPRD cured this issue by

amending the bracketed section 5.04 language through resolutions

and authorizing a second supplemental indenture to the Master

Indenture, we find no error in the circuit court’s final judgment

based on its lack of discussion about the section 5.04 issue.

Accordingly, Matt has not carried his burden of demonstrating

that the circuit court erred in concluding that the UPRD has the

authority to issue the 2024 bonds. 9

Issue 2 – Additional Special Assessment Analysis

Next, Matt argues that in validating the 2024 bond issue, the

circuit court erred in concluding that the residential properties

9. To the extent Matt complains that he was induced to purchase his home in the UPRD community due to the language in section 5.04, that is a collateral matter that has nothing to do with whether the UPRD has authority to issue the 2024 bonds.

- 24 - burdened by the special assessment within the UPRD community

would derive a special benefit that exceeds the burden of debt.

When a bond issuance is to be funded by special assessments,

this Court applies an “additional two-pronged test to evaluate

whether those special assessments meet the requirements of the

law.” Citizens Advocating Responsible Env’t Sols., Inc. v. City of

Marco Island, 959 So. 2d 203, 206 (Fla. 2007). The two-pronged

test requires that: “(1) the property burdened by the assessment

must derive a special benefit from the service provided by the

assessment; and (2) the assessment for the services must be

properly apportioned among the properties receiving the benefit.”

City of Winter Springs v. State, 776 So. 2d 255, 257 (Fla. 2001).10

10. This review is aimed at ensuring the special assessment is just that—a special assessment and not a tax—because the hallmark of a special assessment is that it confers a special benefit to subject property owners that is fairly apportioned. See City of Boca Raton, 595 So. 2d at 29 (“A special assessment is like a tax in that it is an enforced contribution from the property owner, it may possess other points of similarity to a tax but it is inherently different and governed by entirely different principles. It is imposed upon the theory that that portion of the community which is required to bear it receives some special or peculiar benefit in the enhancement of value of the property against which it is imposed as a result of the improvement made with the proceeds of the special assessment.” (quoting Klemm v. Davenport, 129 So. 904, 907 (Fla. 1930))).

- 25 - “The apportionment of benefits is a legislative function, and if

reasonable persons may differ as to whether the land assessed was

benefitted by the local improvement, the findings of the city officials

must be sustained.” City of Boca Raton, 595 So. 2d at 30.

As this Court has stated, “[i]n evaluating whether a special

benefit is conferred to property by the services for which the

assessment is imposed . . . the test is whether there is a ‘logical

relationship’ between the services provided and the benefit to real

property.” Morris v. City of Cape Coral, 163 So. 3d 1174, 1177-78

(Fla. 2015) (quoting Lake County v. Water Oak Mgmt. Corp., 695 So.

2d 667, 669 (Fla. 1997)).

Matt focuses on the first prong, 11 arguing that the UPRD did

not meet its burden of demonstrating empirically how the special

benefit will exceed the debt burden because it failed to present the

type of testimony presented in City of Boca Raton. In that case, the

City’s urban economic consultant testified that “his analysis

11. Matt does not challenge the second prong, that the special assessment will be fairly apportioned, and the final judgment’s conclusion that the assessment will be fairly apportioned is unrefuted.

- 26 - showed that the subject properties ‘would at least on a cumulative

basis receive $7 of benefit for every $1 that they were paying in

assessments’ ” and opined that “the use of ad valorem values in

making special assessments . . . was the most equitable method

that could be employed for the City’s project.” City of Boca Raton,

595 So. 2d at 30.

Matt incorrectly reads City of Boca Raton. Even there, in

reversing the circuit court’s decision not to validate the bonds, this

Court still concluded there was competent, substantial evidence to

support the City’s legislative findings and directly rejected Matt’s

argument, stating that “[t]he City was not required to specifically

itemize a dollar amount of benefit to be received by each parcel.” Id.

at 31 (emphasis added). This Court also noted that the exact

methodology in determining a special benefit is “immaterial,” as

many factors go into the appraisal of property, and, thus, the

assessment “may vary within the district, as long as the amount of

the assessment for each tract is not in excess of the proportional

benefits as compared to other assessments on other tracts.” Id.

(quoting S. Trail Fire Control Dist. v. State, 273 So. 2d 380, 384 (Fla.

1973)).

- 27 - Further, in deferring to legislative findings, this Court has

approved more generalized findings concerning special benefits

where the benefit bore a logical relationship to the property. For

instance, in Morris, 163 So. 3d 1174, this Court considered whether

a municipality’s special assessment for fire services was a “special

benefit” to the property owners or a tax, given that fire services were

a general benefit to the community at large. After explaining that a

“logical relationship” between the services provided and the benefit

to the property is the proper test, not whether the services confer a

“unique” benefit, this Court concluded that there was a special

benefit logically related to the subject properties based on the

municipality’s finding of legislative intent in its ordinance, which

contained no empirical data concerning the increase in value to

property based on the fire services assessment. Id. at 1178.

Rather, the special benefit was more qualitative and generally

described as: protecting “the value and integrity” of improvements;

protecting the “life and safety of intended occupants”; “lowering the

cost of fire insurance”; and “containing and extinguishing the

spread of fire incidents occurring on property.” Id.

Additionally, in Morris, the municipality’s experts testified that

- 28 - the assessment specially benefitted all parcels “by raising property

value and marketability, limiting liability by containing fire and

preventing its spread to other parcels, ensuring immediate

response, and heightening the use and enjoyment of all properties.”

Id. This Court reasoned these findings are similar to reasons we

accepted in Water Oak Management, which recognized that fire

protections services “at a minimum, specially benefit real property

by providing for lower insurance premiums and enhancing the

value of the property.” Id. (quoting Water Oak Mgmt., 695 So. 2d at

669).

Similarly here, between the UPRD’s legislative findings, the

findings in the Methodology report, and Mr. Plenzler’s unrefuted

testimony, the special assessment to service the 2024 bond issue is

clearly logically related to properties within the UPRD community

though the benefits are more qualitative and generalized. Further,

the properties within the UPRD clearly specially benefit from the

recreational services provided in the neighborhood, which are for

the health, safety, and welfare of the owners and residents. And as

the unrefuted appraisal data shows, well-maintained golf course

communities tend to have higher property values.

- 29 - Thus, because the UPRD’s legislative findings—that the 2024

bond issue will specially benefit the burdened properties—will be

deferred to and sustained where “reasonable persons may differ,”

City of Boca Raton, 595 So. 2d at 30, we find no error and affirm the

final judgment on this point.

Issue 3 – Due Process

Next, we have considered Matt’s due process arguments and

conclude that he has raised no basis for relief. Generally, notice

and the opportunity to be heard are sufficient to meet procedural

due process requirements. Fla. Bankers Ass’n, 176 So. 3d at

1266. 12 Here, although Matt does not challenge notice under

12. We ordinarily look to a three-factor test to determine “[t]he specific parameters of the notice and the opportunity to be heard required by procedural due process” given that they “are not evaluated by fixed rules of law, but rather by the requirements of the particular proceeding.” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Sch. Bd. of Palm Beach Cnty. v. Survivors Charter Sch., Inc., 3 So. 3d 1220, 1236 (Fla. 2009)). In order to determine what process is constitutionally required, the Court “must begin with a determination of the precise nature of the government function involved as well as of the private interest that has been affected by governmental action.” Cafeteria & Rest. Workers Union v. McElroy, 367 U.S. 886, 895 (1961). “Three factors are relevant in determining what process is constitutionally due: (1) the private interest that will be affected by the official action; (2) the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute

- 30 - chapter 75, he was given sufficient constructive notice of the bond

validation complaint and timely intervened by filing an answer. He

was also permitted an opportunity to be heard at the bond

validation hearing and allowed to present evidence and make

argument.

However, as to his opportunity to be heard at the April 29

bond validation hearing, Matt asserts it was not a fair one due to

what he perceived as Judge Nicholas’s disrespectful comments to

him, refusal to acknowledge his arguments, and entry of final

judgment before considering his emergency motion. Matt even

sought to disqualify Judge Nicholas.

We first address Matt’s argument that Judge Nicholas erred in

ruling on his unsworn motion to disqualify and denying it as legally

procedural safeguards; and (3) the government’s interest.” Keys Citizens, 795 So. 2d at 948-49. However, because Matt’s arguments are either unpreserved or unsupported by the record, we need not go through an exhaustive analysis of the three factors. We have also reviewed Jackson v. Leon County Elections Canvassing Board, 204 So. 3d 571 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016), and Matt’s argument that the failure to review a pretrial motion before entering final judgment violates due process. However, because the record does not support Matt’s contention that Judge Nicholas failed to review his motion for stay before entering final judgment, he has failed to demonstrate any due process issue.

- 31 - insufficient. Contrary to Matt’s arguments, Judge Nicholas properly

ruled on the motion to disqualify himself. See Fla. R. Gen. Prac. &

Jud. Admin. 2.330(h) (“The judge against whom an initial motion to

disqualify . . . is directed may determine only the legal sufficiency of

the motion and shall not pass on the truth of the facts alleged.”).

And Judge Nicholas properly denied Matt’s motion as legally

insufficient because, being unsworn, his motion did not meet the

requirements of rule 2.330(c)(3). Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin.

2.330(c)(3) (requiring written motion “be sworn to or affirmed by the

party by signing the motion or by attaching a separate affidavit”).

Additionally, Matt’s motion was untimely under rule 2.330(g)

because it was filed more than twenty days after the April 29

hearing. See Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin. 2.330(g) (providing

that motions to disqualify must be filed “within a reasonable time

not to exceed 20 days after discovery by the party . . . of the facts

constituting the grounds for the motion” (emphasis added)).

Matt’s remaining due process arguments are based on

speculation about whether Judge Nicholas actually reviewed Matt’s

emergency motion to stay and whether Judge Nicholas reviewed

exhibits Matt submitted at the April 29 hearing. These arguments

- 32 - are unpreserved and inadequately argued, and Matt has not argued

fundamental error. As a result, they do not form a basis for relief.

III. CONCLUSION

Finding no error, we affirm the final judgment validating the

UPRD’s 2024 bond issue.

It is so ordered.

COURIEL, C.J., and LABARGA, MUÑIZ, GROSSHANS, and SASSO, JJ., concur. TANENBAUM, J., did not participate.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court in and for Manatee County Bond Validations Edward Nicholas, Judge Case No. 412024CA000252CAAXMA

Dean K. Matt, University Park, Florida,

for Appellant

Fred E. Moore and‫ك‬Mark Barnebey of Blalock Walters, P.A., Bradenton, Florida; and Jesse R. Butler of Butler Legacy & Litigation, PLLC, Lakewood Ranch, Florida,

for Appellee University Park Recreation District

- 33 -