RICHARD WILLIAMS, ROBERT FRENCH, WILLIAM KIRCHHOFF, JOHN ALEXANDER AND HARRY KWIATKOWSKI, AS AND CONSTITUTING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SEMINOLE COUNTY OF FLORIDA, APPELLANTS,
v.
PAULA F. HAWKINS, WILLIAM T. MAYO AND ROBERT T. MANN, AS AND CONSTITUTING THE FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court reversed summary judgment dismissing a county's license fee ordinance as an illegal tax, holding that a genuine issue of material fact exists regarding whether the fee was connected to regulatory costs and cannot be resolved without evidentiary support.
Summary judgment was improper because a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether a proposed license fee was an illegal tax, which cannot be determined from the ordinance and pleadings alone without evidentiary support.
[1] A license fee imposed by a county on utilities is an illegal tax if unconnected to the cost of regulating those utilities, but this determination requires evidentiary sup…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“If the license fee was unconnected with the cost of regulating the utilities which would pay the fee then it is a tax and illegal.”
Court explaining the legal standard for distinguishing a valid license fee from an illegal tax.
Seminole County commissioners sought to impose a license fee on utilities by ordinance, and the Florida Public Service Commission challenged it as an …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
DAUKSCH, Judge.
There is a genuine issue of material fact which was improperly decided by summary judgment in this case. The lawsuit is centered around whether a license fee the county would impose by ordinance was in fact an illegal tax. If the license fee was unconnected with the cost of regulating the utilities which would pay the fee then it is a tax and illegal. Bateman v. City of Winter Park et al. 37 So. 2d 362 (Fla.1948); Broward County v. Janis Development Corp., 311 So. 2d 371 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). While it may appear from the pleadings the fee was a tax there is no evidence to support such a conclusion and a trial of the matter may reveal otherwise. The motion and order for summary judgment are totally unsupported by testimony, by affidavit or otherwise, and the only evidence in our record is the ordinance itself. The error is in granting a summary judgment without an evidentiary foundation to support it. It is not a question of whether or not the fee was a tax. That question cannot be decided by a review of the ordinance and the pleadings. There must be evidence to support the proposition the fee was in fact a tax. Perhaps affidavits and depositions may support a similar summary judgment later but there are none of record yet. Holl v. Talcott, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla.1966).
REVERSED and REMANDED.
DOWNEY, C. J., concurs.
LETTS, J., dissents with opinion.
[*1011] LETTS, Judge,
dissenting:
I dissent.
This is most obviously a tax, not a license fee. In fact the ordinance prior to the one at issue, called it a “tax”; however, a new ordinance has been substituted which uses the magic phrase “license fee.” I can discern nothing in this ordinance which renders it anything more than a revenue raising measure and there are no additional conditions to be performed by the utility company (see Bateman, supra) sufficient to raise an issue of material fact. I would affirm.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Gory Roofing Tile Mfg., Inc. v. Davison, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 1966)
- Broward Cnty. v. Janis Dev. Corp., 311 So. 2d 371 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)