Case Name: Bruce O. WILLIAMS, J.R. Knight, et al., Appellants, v. ESCAMBIA COUNTY, Florida, a political, etc., Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1998-12-21
Citations: 725 So. 2d 392
Docket Number: No. 98-1183
Parties: Bruce O. WILLIAMS, J.R. Knight, et al., Appellants, v. ESCAMBIA COUNTY, Florida, a political, etc., Appellees.
Judges: MINER and LAWRENCE, JJ., and ' McDONALD, PARKER LEE, Senior Judge, concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 725
Pages: 392–393

Head Matter:
Bruce O. WILLIAMS, J.R. Knight, et al., Appellants, v. ESCAMBIA COUNTY, Florida, a political, etc., Appellees.
No. 98-1183.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Dec. 21, 1998.
Rehearing Denied Feb. 2, 1999.
Louis K. Rosenbloum, Pensacola, Robert G. Kerrigan, Pensacola, and J. Michael Huey, Tallahassee, for Appellants.
David G. Tucker, Pensacola, and Gregory T. Stewart, Tallahassee, for Appellees.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
We approve the trial judge's order dismissing the appellants' class action suit seeking relief from the provisions of Escam-bia County Ordinance No. 89-11. We agree with the conclusion that the county had the authority to enact this ordinance and to make reasonable classification of the long-term leased property for the purpose of special assessments. Imposing assessments on the leasehold interests for mosquito control and police protection was permissible and legal.
We reject the appellants' contention that the ordinance violates Section 10, Article I and Section 9(a) of Article VII of the Florida Constitution, and Section 10, Article I of the United States Constitution, or Chapter 199 and Section 196.199(2)(a), Flori da Statutes. We likewise reject the argument that the ordinance constitutes a breach of contract or impairs the obligations of contract between itself and the appellant class.
AFFIRMED.
MINER and LAWRENCE, JJ., and ' McDONALD, PARKER LEE, Senior Judge, concur.
. The trial judge also dismissed the action because of failure to join an indispensable party and failing to serve the Attorney General or State Attorney. These errors could have been corrected. We construe the order of dismissal with prejudice to be for reasons enunciated above and not these.