Why A Dollar Is A Dollar

-->

On 2015 02 18 I revisit this article to mention that the US Government and agencies have very devious ways of claiming the face value of Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs) US minted bullion coins of the same denomination, when it suits them to do so, and to declare that such bullion coins actually have their numismatic value, and not their face value, when it suits them to do so.  The IRS claims such coins you receive have numismatic value, and the US Court claims such coins you spend have only the face value.  I do not advise getting into a contest with the IRS over this unless you have an awful lot of bullion to spend for legal expenses.

Bob Hurt

Copyright © 29. March 2011 by Bob Hurt. All Rights Reserved.

Introduction – the US Creates Money

The United States Government provides a variety of forms of money for people to use in commercial transactions. The Constitution gives Congress authority to levy the value of the dollar, the unit of currency.

The Value of a Dollar

Last time Congress did so, it set the value of the dollar to 371.25 grains of fine silver, about $1.26 per ounce. Silver sells today for $36.89 per ounce, and gold for $1417.16 per ounce (see http://xe.com), not counting the broker fee. Bullion Silver Eagle ($1) and Gold Eagle ($50) coins cost more because of the minting fee. So,what gives?

Inflation from Deficit Spending Destroys Currency Values

Simply, the government has messed up our money, destroying its value in precious metals through inflation which Congress caused by deficit spending and “bailouts” of players in the banking, finance, and insurance industries.

Congress Removed Precious Metals from Circulating Coins

Years ago, Congress removed precious metals from circulating coins and put the metals (gold, silver, platimum) only in numismatic coins. See the advertisements at http://www.usmint.gov.
Congress mandated the circulation of US dollars in “legal tender” currency known as “Federal Reserve Notes” (FRNs) in denominations of $1, $5, $10, $20, $50, and $100, and coins in 1, 5, 10, 25, and 50 cents. Congress has effectively removed all others from general circulation.
So what can you do when $1 as a US minted “bullion” silver dollar costs you $38 in FRNs?

What to Do about Currency Devaluation

Buy Precious Metal Coins

To begin with, you ought to start purchasing silver and gold coins. Remember that today's $38 Silver Eagle dollar cost only $5 ten years ago. Many consider silver grossly under-valued. That will probably change as inflation drives the price upward, as it has gold. Thus, silver looks like a better buy right now than gold. Some think the price of gold will exceed $5000 an ounce in the near future. If you don't buy something that goes up in value, your FRN currency will become worth ever less as time goes by.

Save Gold and Silver Coins, not Currency

It seems insane, in other words, to save FRN's such as in a bank savings acount or under the mattress.
Remember, though that the price of precious metals does go down as well as up. If Congress and the Federal Reserve take actions to improve the value of the dollar, precious metals will fall in price. I don't consider that likely within the next 5 years. LOOK at the inflation table to see the trend of FRNs. The inflation (devaluation) rate went up in all but 9 of the past 134 months. That means the buying power of FRN dollars goes down every month. So if you have $40 lying around, go buy a Silver Eagle with it, and if you have $1500 lying around, go buy a Gold Eagle with it. As the inflation rate goes up and the FRN value goes down, your eagles will fly ever higher, and you will smile when you think about it. That's Not All – You can LEVERAGE the Money System

How to Leverage the Money System

Avoid Tax Crimes

Robert Kahre of Las Vegas hates the Federal Reserve AND the IRS. He business associates began paying themselves and employees in gold and silver coin instead of FRNs. He also stopped filing tax returns and withholding taxes from employee pay. Not having a sensible strategy for dealing with the income tax issue, a jury convicted him in 2009 of tax crimes. But earlier juries exonerated him and his associates he from over 100 counts related to avoiding tax by paying employees in gold and silver coins. See these links for more info:

• http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2009/aug/14/jury-convicts-business-owner-robert-kahre-tax-frau/
• http://www.theindustrycontacts.com/2010/09/the-irs-vs-robert-kahre/
• http://www.lvrj.com/news/las-vegas-woman-gets-prison-time-for-role-in-tax-evasion-scam-102938379.html
• http://www.rapidtrends.com/robert-kahre-vs-the-irs-and-doj/
• http://educate-yourself.org/cn/noconvictionsrobertkahreLVreviewjournal20sep07.shtml
  

Demand Specie for Taxable Income

You see, when you receive taxable income in the form of a Gold Eagle, you report its face value of $50 on any tax return. You don't report its numismatic value of $1417+. Why? Because “a dollar is a dollar.”
On 2 October 2008 the 5^th US Circuit Court of Appeals proved this point with crystal clarity in its opinion for the Crummey v Klein case. The IRS might hate it, but they can't do a thing about it. I have appended the docket report and the opinion below.

Because A Dollar is A Dollar

Essentially, Crummey presented Klein a Gold Eagle for payment of taxes. Klein said the tax came to more than $50, the face value of the coin, and demanded more. Crummey said the coin had a higher actual value, and a dispute arose. Crummey sued. The 5^th Circuit settled the matter by opining “...a dollar is a dollar.” By that the panel meant a dollar in any form equals the value of a dollar in any other form, regardless of their acquisition prices.
As a personal finance or business strategy, it makes sense to accept taxable income only in the form of specie (“lawful money” gold and silver coins of the realm). So if you sell a $150,000 house, put the equivalent price in Gold Eagles in the purchase agreement. At $1500 per coin, the buyer would need to pay you 100 coins. You would declare the face amount of $5,000 ($50 per coin times 100 coins) as income on any tax return. If the house cost you $100,000, you would have a tax credit on the difference of $95.000.

Slippery, but Blame Congress

Oh, this seems a little slippery to you? I agree, but the fault lies with the Congress and Federal Reserve, not with you. You have the legal right and duty to minimize your tax obligations by every legal means necessary. And you have a 5^th Circuit ruling to support the legality of your choosing the most tax-advantageous form of money to accept.

Pay Tax-Deductible Money in FRNs

Additionally, you ought to pay tax-deductible money in the form having the most terrible value: FRNs.
I would advise no one to inform the IRS of this strategy because the IRS might then do to you what it did to Robert Kahre, drag out a microscope and find something on which to win a conviction. You don't want them hating your guts.

Using the Coin Broker

You might seek out a reputable coin dealer in your area to handle the transaction easily for you. You would settle with the dealer in advance on the specific cost for the specie, including brokerage fee. You would make up an order in the name of your payor to the dealer to pay you a specific number of coins of specific metal content and face value. The payor would cover the brokerage fee or not, based on your agreement with the payor and dealer. You would not put the cost in FRNs on the form. Instead, have the broker make up a separate receipt for the cost. You would give the form to the payor. The payor would sign it and attach a check or certified fund instrument, then send it to the dealer. The dealer would deliver the coins to you and the receipt to the payor, concluding the transaction of payment.

In the event you needed FRNs for paying bills and living expenses, you would trade some of the coins back to the broker for FRNs. The broker might forgive the brokerage fees on this transaction.

Crummey v Klein Docket and Opinion

See the following pages for the Docket Report and the 5^th Circuit's Crummey v Klein opinion. I have uploaded the opinion I downloaded from Pacer.gov to http://www.scribd.com/doc/51812506.

Bob Hurt        My Blog 2460 Persian Drive #70 Clearwater, FL 33763 Email; Call: (727) 669-5511 Law Studies: Donate   Subscribe Learn to Litigate with Jurisdictionary

General Docket United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit

Court of Appeals Docket #: 08-20133 Docketed: 02/29/2008 Termed: 10/02/2008 Nature of Suit: 3370 Other Fraud Crummey v. Klein Indep Sch Dist, et al Appeal From: Southern District of Texas, Houston Fee Status: fee paid Case Type Information:      1) Private Civil Federal      2) Private      3)
Originating Court Information:      District: 0541-4 : 4:07-CV-1685      Ordering Judge: Sim T. Lake, III, U.S. District Judge      Date Filed: 05/21/2007      Date NOA Filed:      Date Rec'd COA:      02/27/2008      02/27/2008
06/17/2008		Motion filed by Appellant Brent E Crummey alternative request for an evidentiary hearing [6051522-1] Date of COS: 6/16/08 Sufficient [Y/N]: y [08-20133] (INCORPORATED IN RESPONSE TO MOTION TO FOR DAMAGES) (SUB TO SCR JUDGE & PANEL) (AS)
06/25/2008		Briefing Complete. [08-20133] Reply brief ddl canceled. (AS)
10/02/2008		Opinion filed. Mandate pull date is 10/23/08. [08-20133] (JMA)
10/02/2008		COURT Order filed denying as moot appellant's motion for an evidentiary hearing [6051522-1], denying appellee's motion for damages under Rule 38 [6043200-1] (HANDLED IN OPINION) (WED,EMG,ECP) Copies to all counsel. [08-20133] (JMA)
10/02/2008		Judgment entered and filed. [08-20133] (JMA)
10/06/2008		Bill of costs filed by Appellee Klein Indep Sch Dist, Appellee Thomas Petrek, Appellee Deborah H Wehner. Sufficient [Y/N]: Y . [6130376-1] [08-20133] (CPD)
10/16/2008		Petition filed by Appellant Brent E Crummey for rehearing. # of copies filed: 4 [6137765-1] Mandate pull date canceled. Date of COS: 10/15/08 Sufficient [Y/N]: Y [08-20133] (CPD)
11/12/2008		COURT Order filed denying petition for rehearing [6137765-1] Mandate pull date is 11/19/08. (EMG) Copies to all counsel. [08-20133] (CPD)
11/20/2008		Mandate issued. Approved BOC Issued (Y/N)?: Y [08-20133] Mandate pull date satisfied. (CPD)
11/20/2008		Record on appeal returned to USDC. Electronic ROA Recycled:[Y/N] Y. [08-20133] (CPD)

BRENT E. CRUMMEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. KLEIN INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT; THOMAS PETREK; DEBORAH H. WEHNER, Defendants - Appellees.
No. 08-20133 Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 20981
October 2, 2008, Filed

PRIOR HISTORY: [*1] Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. 4:07-CV-1685.

COUNSEL: For BRENT E CRUMMEY, Plaintiff - Appellant: Brent E Crummey, Scottsdale, AZ.

For KLEIN INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, THOMAS PETREK, DEBORAH H WEHNER, Defendants - Appellees: David M Feldman, Ellen Huchital Spalding, Adam David Courtin, Feldman, Rogers, Morris & Grover, Houston, TX.

JUDGES: Before DAVIS, GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

OPINION
PER CURIAM: *

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5THCIR. R. 47.5.4.
Brent E. Crummey brought this lawsuit complaining that the defendants/appellees, Klein Independent School District ("KISD") and two employees of the KISD tax office, declined to accept Crummey's fifty-dollar United States American Eagle gold coins for any more than the face value of the coins in Federal Reserve Note dollars as tender in payment for taxes Crummey owed. Crummey, proceeding pro se, sought to assert various federal and state causes of action arising from this incident, including that the appellees violated Crummey's alleged right under Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution [*2] to pay a debt in gold coin. 2 The district court, adopting the Memorandum, Recommendation and Order of the Magistrate Judge, dismissed sua sponte Crummey's federal claims and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Crummey's remaining state law claims,which were remanded to state court. Crummey appeals.

2 Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution provides, in part: "No State shall . . . make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts."

The core of Crummey's appeal rests on Crummey's argument that the legal monetary value of fifty dollars in United States American Eagle gold coin is different than (and worth more than) the legal monetary value of fifty dollars in Federal Reserve Notes, or as it is sometimes affectionately called, cash. Regardless of any currency confusion that may have arisen in bygone eras, our present standard is clear: As legal tender, a dollar is a dollar.

Crummey suggests that the United States has a parallel or dual monetary valuation system for the dollar. Crummey relies for support on a statute authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury to mint certain coins and to sell them to the public at a price based on the market value of the [*3] bullion plus production costs. See 31 U.S.C. § 5112(f)(1). According to Crummey, the fact that the United States Mint sells coins into circulation at an amount that is often different than the face value of the coins, supports his theory for the existence of some form of dollar-for-dollar exchange rate between the "coin" dollar and the "FRN" dollar.

Crummey's argument conflates the market value of such coins as bullion, or as a collectors' items, with the value of the coins as legal tender. Fittingly, the Supreme Court has explained:

A coin dollar is worth no more for the purposes of tender in payment of an ordinary debt than a note dollar. The law has not made the note a standard of value any more than coin. It is true that in the market, as an article of merchandise, one is of greater value than the other; but as money, that is to say, as a medium of exchange, the law knows no difference between them.


Thompson v. Butler, 95 U.S. 694, 696, 24 L. Ed. 540 (1877). "United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues. Foreign gold or silver coins are not legal [*4] tender for debts." 31 U.S.C. § 5103; see also Mathes v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 576 F.2d 70, 71 (5th Cir. 1978) (per curiam) ("Congress has delegated the power to establish this national currency which is lawful money to the Federal Reserve System."); United States v. Wangrud, 533 F.2d 495, 495 (9th Cir. 1976) (per curiam) ("By statute it is established that federal reserve notes, on an equal basis with other coins and currencies of the United States, shall be legal tender for all debts, public and private, including taxes.").

We reject Crummey's suggestion that the "dollar" has multiple meanings or values within the United States system of currency. See 31 U.S.C. § 5101 ("United States money is expressed in dollars, dimes or tenths, cents or hundreths, and mills or thousandths. A dime is a tenth of a dollar, a cent is a hundredth of a dollar, and a mill is a thousandth of a dollar."). As legal tender, a dollar is a dollar, regardless of the physical embodiment of the currency.

The legal monetary value of Crummey's fifty dollar American Gold Eagle coin is equivalent to that of a fifty dollar Federal Reserve Note. Crummey's argument to the contrary, on which the bulk of his [*5] appeal rests, fails.

Having carefully considered all of Crummey's issues on appeal in light of the record and the applicable law, we find them to be without merit. For these reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Furthermore, appellees' motion for sanctions pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure is DENIED. Crummey's alternative request for an evidentiary hearing on appellees' motion for sanctions is DENIED as moot.

Is a Dollar JUST a Dollar? Presentment can drive this point home.

Take note that a recipient to a notice and demand has no duty to respond except under court order or contract.

Notice the attached presentment letter.  The notice and demand cycle plays home to it.  If I present the letter to someone with a legal duty to respond, then the N&D cycle will provide conclusive evidence of the exhaustion of administrative remedy.  It sets the stage for a tort complaint or declaratory judgment effort, a declaration of the legal sufficiency of the admin process, and proof that no controversy exists (if the target failed to respond at all).  It sets the stage for a damages action.

Notice the certificate of  mailing, concrete proof that my envelope contained the letter I say it contained.  The recipient cannot duck out except by refusing the certified letter, so send it registered or by courier or process server.

The key:  I bill the target for my labor and expenses required to defend my rights, and I accept payment only in gold or silver US minted coins.  The 5th circuit ruled a few years ago that a dollar (federal reserve note) is (equals) a dollar (silver dollar, now going for $38 in FRNs). 

I would stash the attached  "dollar is a dollar" ruling.  I can use it when some target whines that I charge too much.

So if I charge $500 an hour in silver coins for the odious work of defending my rights, that comes out to a boatload of dough in FRNs.

It gets BETTER.  If ANYONE must pay me a wad of dough, I contact a friendly coin dealer first and get a price for that amount of money converted to silver or gold coins at the going rate.  I simply prepare a purchase order for the coin dealer on behalf of the person paying me, and have that person make out the check to the coin dealer and a statement to me that he paid me x/38 in dollars (without mentioning silver or gold).  I can pay the broker fee.  And I can go ahead and exchange my silver/gold back for frn cash if I need to spend it right away.  I sell in gold/silver and I buy in frns.      I would  have no trouble with the arithmetic when it came time to do my taxes, IF I ever did taxes.  The IRS hates it, but a Las Vegas jury kicked their butts all the way to Pluto in a dispute with Robert Kahre and his clique of construction companies who paid workers in specie having a low tax obligation because "a dollar is a dollar."

http://www.lvrj.com/news/46074037.html

Also, I keep my receipts and a proper journal on my labor, time, travel, expenses, phone calls (including recordings - I signed up for google voice on my cell phone).  I use all this to PROVE my demand for compensatory damages AFTER I get the declaratory judgment that no controversy exists between me and the target (silence = acquiescence), which I can present to the court in a mandatory judicial notice of adjudicative fact after using RFA in discovery, with the same questions as in my presentment.  In a deposition afterward I can ask "were you lying then or are you lying now?  Did you think you could ignore your responsibilities to answer a simple presentment when you knew your refusal would hang you in court?  Did you intend to cheat me all along?" or questions to that effect.

Did you get all that?  What do you think?  Fact (serious), or conjecture (entertainment, fun)?  CONJECTURE, of course.  As a non-attorney educator/entertainer I don't give legal advice, so consider the above comments just a bit of raconteuring.  Read the law and case histories and make your own determination of what they mean and how to use them.  For advice on these matters, consult a competent, experienced attorney. 

--

Bob Hurt        My Blog 2460 Persian Drive #70 Clearwater, FL 33763 Email; Call: (727) 669-5511 Law Studies: Donate   Subscribe Learn to Litigate with Jurisdictionary

Can the AG Certify the Law as "Constitutional?"

Remember this article?

http://www.scribd.com/doc/35535049/Intervention-Challenge-the-Law-by-Demanding-Certification

I hope you never forget this as a "big deal."  When someone asks the AG to certify a CRIMINAL (or other dangerous law) as "constitutional," the question becomes  a political hot potato, and no matter what the AG decides, it might cause the AG trouble.  So the AG will typically avoid it, and the plaintiff might (in a criminal matter) dismiss the case, especially with the media nearby.

So this can become quite a cute hammer.

Remember that it fits in the area of "Declaratory Judgment,"  a very powerful, innocuous weapon, as in this Florida Statute:

86.091  Parties.—When declaratory relief is sought, all persons may be made parties who have or claim any interest which would be affected by the declaration. No declaration shall prejudice the rights of persons not parties to the proceedings. In any proceeding concerning the validity of a county or municipal charter, ordinance, or franchise, such county or municipality shall be made a party and shall be entitled to be heard. If the statute, charter, ordinance, or franchise is alleged to be unconstitutional, the Attorney General or the state attorney of the judicial circuit in which the action is pending shall be served with a copy of the complaint and be entitled to be heard.
History.—s. 10, ch. 21820, 1943; s. 1, ch. 59-440; s. 38, ch. 67-254.
Note.—Former s. 87.10.

--

Bob Hurt        My Blog 2460 Persian Drive #70 Clearwater, FL 33763 Email; Call: (727) 669-5511 Law Studies: Donate   Subscribe Learn to Litigate with Jurisdictionary

Certification of Florida Statutes, Codes as "Constitutional"

Citizens can ask the AG to certify the law as constitutional.

I thought you might like to see this.  I found it while browsing the civil practice and procedure of Florida Statutes.  Read 86.091 at this link (see text below)

http://leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0000-0099/0086/0086.html

86.091 Parties.—When declaratory relief is sought, all persons may be made parties who have or claim any interest which would be affected by the declaration. No declaration shall prejudice the rights of persons not parties to the proceedings. In any proceeding concerning the validity of a county or municipal charter, ordinance, or franchise, such county or municipality shall be made a party and shall be entitled to be heard. If the statute, charter, ordinance, or franchise is alleged to be unconstitutional, the Attorney General or the state attorney of the judicial circuit in which the action is pending shall be served with a copy of the complaint and be entitled to be heard.

While the AG / State Attorney need not render an opinion, it might constitute political suicide to fail to do so.

Maybe the complaint could state that the law violates the Constitution and state that failure of the AG to deny it estops a later dissent.

I have not looked for any case law on it.  I think UPL as a penalty deserves such a challenge.

Regarding Adverse Possession

I believe this provides a method of demanding that the court declare Adverse Possession (AP) does not constitute a crime and that the sheriff has no authority to accuse an APer of some crime like grand theft, scheme to defraud, burglary, criminal mischief, breaking and entering, or larceny when the APer merely follows the AP statute.

I would add the following to my request for Declaratory Judgment:

1. The APer must not destroy or dismantle or alter any structures on, dig and leave uncovered holes in the ground of, remove, sell, or otherwise dispose of any appliances or equipment on, components of, vegetation on, chattels on, or minerals or elements in, the realty UNLESS they constitute what a reasonable person would consider a hazard to inhabitation or "working" the land, or refuse/junk/trash/garbage, or necessary to the maintenance of the realty and compliance with laws, rules, codes, or covenants.  Any such act would probably constitute a crime.
   
   
2. The APer has the right to interpret abandonment of the realty as the abandonment of all chattels in or on the realty or its appurtenances, and that the APer may dispose of, claim as the AP's own, or use said chattels without penalty, the same as if the APer had found the chattels in a dumpster dive.
   
   
3. The APer has the right to host guests to, or lease, rent, or sublet the realty or portions of it to other parties of the APer's choosing, but that the APer has the legal duty to safeguard and protect the property from such parties if they become malfeasors, and to eject such parties summarily for malfeasance in connection with the visit to or occupancy of the realty, and that a monthly inspection, inventory, and comparison of prior condition of the realty and its buildings and appurtenances shall suffice as "due diligence," provided the APer summarily ejects parties causing damage or peace disturbance problems at or on the realty, and bars/bans their return.
   
   
4. The APer has the duty not only to treat the realty as the APer's own, but also to give it the extra care and protection that a good steward would.  I say this because some people behave irresponsibly with their own property, and they will probably do the same as APers or occupants of an AP realty.  The APer has the duty of stewardship to bar admittance of such irresponsible from the realty, and to remove them if they somehow gain access.  Thus, I see the APer as having responsibilities  and duties to the realty, the owner of record, the community, and the occupants, even more than the owner would have.
   

If a judge made such declarations of right, status, and duty as above, that would provide a common law solution to the negligence of the Legislature in treating this issue responsibly

--

Bob Hurt        My Blog 2460 Persian Drive #70 Clearwater, FL 33763 Email; Call: (727) 669-5511 Law Studies: Donate   Subscribe Learn to Litigate with Jurisdictionary

Title VI CIVIL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE Chapter 86  DECLARATORY JUDGMENTS View Entire Chapter CHAPTER 86 DECLARATORY JUDGMENTS 86.011 Jurisdiction of trial court. 86.021 Power to construe. 86.031 Before breach. 86.041 Actions by executors, administrators, trustees, etc. 86.051 Enumeration not exclusive. 86.061 Supplemental relief. 86.071 Jury trials. 86.081 Costs. 86.091 Parties. 86.101 Construction of law. 86.111 Existence of another adequate remedy; effect. 86.011 Jurisdiction of trial court.—The circuit and county courts have jurisdiction within their respective jurisdictional amounts to declare rights, status, and other equitable or legal relations whether or not further relief is or could be claimed. No action or procedure is open to objection on the ground that a declaratory judgment is demanded. The court’s declaration may be either affirmative or negative in form and effect and such declaration has the force and effect of a final judgment. The court may render declaratory judgments on the existence, or nonexistence: (1) Of any immunity, power, privilege, or right; or (2) Of any fact upon which the existence or nonexistence of such immunity, power, privilege, or right does or may depend, whether such immunity, power, privilege, or right now exists or will arise in the future. Any person seeking a declaratory judgment may also demand additional, alternative, coercive, subsequent, or supplemental relief in the same action. History.—s. 1, ch. 21820, 1943; s. 2, ch. 29737, 1955; s. 38, ch. 67-254; s. 3, ch. 90-269. Note.—Former s. 87.01. 86.021 Power to construe.—Any person claiming to be interested or who may be in doubt about his or her rights under a deed, will, contract, or other article, memorandum, or instrument in writing or whose rights, status, or other equitable or legal relations are affected by a statute, or any regulation made under statutory authority, or by municipal ordinance, contract, deed, will, franchise, or other article, memorandum, or instrument in writing may have determined any question of construction or validity arising under such statute, regulation, municipal ordinance, contract, deed, will, franchise, or other article, memorandum, or instrument in writing, or any part thereof, and obtain a declaration of rights, status, or other equitable or legal relations thereunder. History.—s. 2, ch. 21820, 1943; s. 38, ch. 67-254; s. 458, ch. 95-147. Note.—Former s. 87.02. 86.031 Before breach.—A contract may be construed either before or after there has been a breach of it. History.—s. 3, ch. 21820, 1943; s. 38, ch. 67-254. Note.—Former s. 87.03. 86.041 Actions by executors, administrators, trustees, etc.—Any person interested as or through an executor, administrator, trustee, guardian, or other fiduciary, creditor, devisee, legatee, heir, next of kin, or cestui que trust, in the administration of a trust, a guardianship, or of the estate of a decedent, an infant, a mental incompetent, or insolvent may have a declaration of rights or equitable or legal relations in respect thereto: (1) To ascertain any class of creditors, devisees, legatees, heirs, next of kin, or others; or (2) To direct the executor, administrator, or trustee to refrain from doing any particular act in his or her fiduciary capacity; or (3) To determine any question arising in the administration of the guardianship, estate, or trust, including questions of construction of wills and other writings. For the purpose of this section, a “mental incompetent” is one who, because of mental illness, mental retardation, senility, excessive use of drugs or alcohol, or other mental incapacity, is incapable of either managing his or her property or caring for himself or herself, or both. History.—s. 4, ch. 21820, 1943; s. 38, ch. 67-254; s. 1, ch. 88-33; s. 459, ch. 95-147. Note.—Former s. 87.04. 86.051 Enumeration not exclusive.—The enumeration in ss. 86.021, 86.031 and 86.041 does not limit or restrict the exercise of the general powers conferred in s. 86.011 in any action where declaratory relief is sought. Any declaratory judgment rendered pursuant to this chapter may be rendered by way of anticipation with respect to any act not yet done or any event which has not yet happened, and in such case the judgment shall have the same binding effect with respect to that future act or event, and the rights or liability to arise therefrom, as if that act or event had already been done or had already happened before the judgment was rendered. History.—s. 5, ch. 21820, 1943; s. 38, ch. 67-254. Note.—Former s. 87.05. 86.061 Supplemental relief.—Further relief based on a declaratory judgment may be granted when necessary or proper. The application therefor shall be by motion to the court having jurisdiction to grant relief. If the application is sufficient, the court shall require any adverse party whose rights have been adjudicated by the declaratory judgment to show cause on reasonable notice, why further relief should not be granted forthwith. History.—s. 7, ch. 21820, 1943; s. 38, ch. 67-254. Note.—Former s. 87.07. 86.071 Jury trials.—When an action under this chapter concerns the determination of an issue of fact, the issue may be tried as issues of fact are tried in other civil actions in the court in which the proceeding is pending. To settle questions of fact necessary to be determined before judgment can be rendered, the court may direct their submission to a jury. When a declaration of right or the granting of further relief based thereon concerns the determination of issues of fact triable by a jury, the issues may be submitted to a jury in the form of interrogatories, with proper instructions by the court, whether a general verdict is required or not. Neither this section nor any other section of this chapter shall be construed as requiring a jury to determine issues of fact in chancery actions. History.—s. 8, ch. 21820, 1943; s. 38, ch. 67-254. Note.—Former s. 87.08. 86.081 Costs.—The court may award costs as are equitable. History.—s. 9, ch. 21820, 1943; s. 38, ch. 67-254. Note.—Former s. 87.09. 86.091 Parties.—When declaratory relief is sought, all persons may be made parties who have or claim any interest which would be affected by the declaration. No declaration shall prejudice the rights of persons not parties to the proceedings. In any proceeding concerning the validity of a county or municipal charter, ordinance, or franchise, such county or municipality shall be made a party and shall be entitled to be heard. If the statute, charter, ordinance, or franchise is alleged to be unconstitutional, the Attorney General or the state attorney of the judicial circuit in which the action is pending shall be served with a copy of the complaint and be entitled to be heard. History.—s. 10, ch. 21820, 1943; s. 1, ch. 59-440; s. 38, ch. 67-254. Note.—Former s. 87.10. 86.101 Construction of law.—This chapter is declared to be substantive and remedial. Its purpose is to settle and to afford relief from insecurity and uncertainty with respect to rights, status, and other equitable or legal relations and is to be liberally administered and construed. History.—s. 11, ch. 21820, 1943; s. 38, ch. 67-254. Note.—Former s. 87.11. 86.111 Existence of another adequate remedy; effect.—The existence of another adequate remedy does not preclude a judgment for declaratory relief. The court may order a speedy hearing of an action for a declaratory judgment and may advance it on the calendar. The court has power to give as full and complete equitable relief as it would have had if such proceeding had been instituted as an action in chancery. History.—s. 12, ch. 21820, 1943; s. 2, ch. 29737, 1955; s. 38, ch. 67-254. Note.—Former s. 87.12.