Can a Florida statute change the assessment terms of a contract signed before the statute was enacted?

Plain-English summary

The Sun 'N Lake of Sebring Improvement District had a 1996 contract with a mobile home park that set the district's assessments against the park on a per-acre basis. In 2000, the Legislature enacted section 189.052, Florida Statutes, which says a special district must assess a mobile home facility (regulated under Chapter 513) the same way it assesses a hotel or motel, not as residential units. The district's board president asked whether the newer statute overrides the older contract, and worried that applying it would unconstitutionally impair the contract. The Attorney General's office advised that the statute does not supersede the existing contract.

Both the U.S. and Florida Constitutions prohibit laws that impair the obligation of contracts, and the laws in effect when a contract is signed become part of it. Florida courts also presume that a statute operates prospectively unless the Legislature clearly says otherwise, and they will not give retroactive effect to a statute that interferes with vested rights. Section 189.052 was created in 2000, after the 1996 contract, and contains no language making it retroactive. So the office could not find that the statute applied to the existing contract. It added a forward-looking caveat: state policy requires a special district to exercise its powers in compliance with applicable law, and the contract itself allows amendment only by a written instrument signed by the parties. So while the statute does not rewrite the existing assessment terms, any future amendment to the contract would have to comply with section 189.052. Consistent with its limits, the office did not interpret the contract's terms.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2014. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

What the opinion covered

Special districts and local governments

The office advised that a special district could not apply the 2000 assessment statute to override the terms of a 1996 contract. Because the statute is presumed prospective and has no retroactive language, and because retroactive application would raise contract-impairment concerns, the existing per-acre assessment in the contract stood. The district's path to changing the terms was through a future contract amendment, which would then have to follow section 189.052.

Mobile home park owners and operators

For a regulated facility holding a pre-2000 assessment contract, the opinion supports the view that the older contractual terms govern until the contract is amended. The statutory hotel/motel assessment method would apply to a future amendment, not retroactively to the existing agreement.

Common questions

Q: Can a new Florida statute change the terms of a contract signed before it was enacted?
A: Generally no. The opinion explained that statutes are presumed to operate prospectively and that both constitutions bar laws impairing existing contracts. The 2000 statute had no retroactive language, so it did not override the 1996 contract.

Q: Does that mean the statute never applies to this district?
A: No. The office noted that any future amendment to the contract would have to comply with section 189.052. The statute governs going forward, not the existing terms.

Q: What does the contracts clause protect?
A: The U.S. and Florida Constitutions prohibit laws impairing the obligation of contracts, which Florida courts apply to government contracts as well as private ones.

Background and statutory framework

Article I, section 10 of both the U.S. and Florida Constitutions forbids laws impairing the obligation of contracts, and Florida courts have applied that protection to contracts with the state and its subdivisions (Anders v. Nicholson; City of Miami v. Bus Benches Co.). The laws in force when a contract is made become part of the bargain, and later legislation cannot impair the resulting rights absent a reservation of that power. Reinforcing this, Florida follows the rule that a substantive statute is presumed to apply prospectively only, and one that interferes with vested rights will not be applied retroactively (Yamaha Parts v. Ehrman; Young v. Altenhaus). Section 189.052, enacted in 2000 (Chapter 2000-355, Laws of Florida), directs special districts to assess Chapter 513 facilities like hotels rather than as residential units, but it says nothing about retroactivity. Against the 1996 contract, the office concluded the statute does not apply retroactively, while section 189.03(2)(b)'s compliance policy means future amendments must conform to it.

Citations and references

Statutes and constitutional provisions:

• § 189.052, Fla. Stat. (assessment of chapter 513 facilities)
• Ch. 513, Fla. Stat. (mobile home and recreational vehicle parks)
• Article I, section 10, U.S. Constitution and Florida Constitution

Cases:

• Yamaha Parts Distributions, Inc. v. Ehrman, 316 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 1975)
• Anders v. Nicholson, 150 So. 639 (Fla. 1933)
• City of Miami v. Bus Benches Co., 174 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
• Broughton v. Pensacola, 93 U.S. 266 (1876)
• Young v. Altenhaus, 472 So. 2d 1152 (Fla. 1985)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.myfloridalegal.com/ag-opinions/contracts-assessments
• Original PDF: https://www.myfloridalegal.com/print/pdf/node/8079

Original opinion text

Mr. Richard E. Miller

President, Board of Supervisors

Sun ‘N Lake of Sebring Improvement District

5306 Sun ‘N Lake Boulevard

Sebring, Florida 33872

Dear Mr. Miller:

You have asked for assistance in determining whether section 189.052, Florida Statutes, supersedes the requirements of a contract between the Sun ‘N Lake of Sebring Improvement District (district) and a mobile home park regulated by Chapter 513, Florida Statutes. The 1996 agreement provides that assessments against the park will be on a per acre basis, while the statute, created in 2000, states that mobile home facilities shall be assessed in the same manner as a hotel, motel, or similar facility. There is concern that application of section 189.052, Florida Statutes, would be an unconstitutional impairment of a contract.

Both the United States and the Florida Constitution prohibit the passage of any law impairing the obligations of contracts.[1] The laws existing at the time and place of the contract form a part of it and the contract rights acquired therein may not be impaired by subsequent legislation in the absence of provisions in the contract reserving such powers.[2] The courts of this state have held that the constitutional prohibition against the impairment of contracts is applicable to municipalities and municipal contracts.[3] The constitutional prohibition is against the passage of any law impairing the obligations of contracts.

In Florida, it is clear that absent a clear expression of legislative intent to the contrary, a statute is presumed to operate prospectively.[4] As stated by the Supreme Court of Florida, "[t]his rule mandates that statutes that interfere with vested rights will not be given retroactive effect."[5]

Section 189.052, Florida Statutes, provides:

"When an independent or dependent special district levies an assessment on a facility regulated under chapter 513, the assessment shall not be based on the assertion that the facility is comprised of residential units. Instead, facilities regulated under chapter 513 shall be assessed in the same manner as a hotel, motel, or other similar facility."

Section 189.052, Florida Statutes, was created in 2000,6 after the signing of the 1996 contract between the district and mobile home park (regulated by Chapter 513, Florida Statutes). There is no language in the statute which speaks to its retroactive application, nor could this office find that the statute could be applied to the contract in question. Section 189.03(2)(b), Florida Statutes, however, sets forth the policy of this state "[t]hat the exercise by any independent special district of its powers complies with all applicable laws, rules, and regulations." While this office does not construe the terms of contracts, paragraph 16 of the contract provides for its amendment "only by an instrument in writing signed by the parties hereto or their successors or assigns." Any future amendments to the assessments in the contract, therefore, would have to comply with section 189.052, Florida Statutes.

I trust that these informal comments will be of assistance to you.

Sincerely,

Lagran Saunders

Assistant Attorney General

ALS/tsh

[1] See s. 10, Art. I, U. S. Const., and s. 10, Art. I, Fla. Const.

[2] See Yamaha Parts Distributions, Inc. v. Ehrman, 316 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 1975), in which the Florida Supreme Court refused to apply to a franchise agreement legislation subsequently enacted.

[3] See, e.g., Anders v. Nicholson, 150 So. 639 (Fla. 1933) (constitutional prohibition against laws impairing obligations of contract applies to contracts with state and municipalities as well as contracts between individuals) and City of Miami v. Bus Benches Co., 174 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965) (party to contract with municipality entitled to constitutional protection against impairment of it if municipality attempts to unilaterally change its obligations under valid agreement); see also Broughton v. Pensacola, 93 U. S. 266 (1876) (inhibition of Constitution which preserves the sacredness of contracts against the state's interference applies to liabilities of municipal corporations created by its permission).

[4] See, e.g., Young v. Altenhaus, 472 So. 2d 1152 (Fla. 1985) (in absence of explicit legislative expression to the contrary, a substantive law is to be construed as having prospective effect only); VanBibber v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Insurance Co., 439 So. 2d 880 (Fla. 1983); State v. Lavazzoli, 434 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 1983).

[5] 472 So. 2d at 1154. See also Op. Att’y Gen. Fla. 88-55 (amendment to consultants’ competitive negotiation act does not apply retroactively to continuing contracts entered into prior to amendment).

[6] See s. 9, Ch. 2000-355, Laws of Fla.