CHARLES B. HUNNICUTT, ET AL.,
v.
CITY OF WINTER HAVEN, ET AL.
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 Florida Supreme Court affirmed a decree determining that certain property on the 'ousted part' of Winter Haven was partially subject to municipal taxation despite the owners' argument that it was exempt as ousted property. The court upheld the trial court's apportionment of tax liability based on substantial evidence and the chancellor's personal inspection of the property.
The court held that the tax liability adjudicated by the lower court was warranted, and that the partial tax assessments imposed on portions of the property were appropriate. The court affirmed the chancellor's determination that some property portions remained subject to municipal tax obligations while others were exempt.
“The City of Winter Haven claimed it was furnishing municipal benefits, advantages, privileges, and had de facto authority to impose municipal taxes on the property involved. The owners of the property involved contradicted this by bill for injunction...to enjoin the assessment and collection of taxes due and to become due on said land on the ground that the property was not benefited by municipal benefits from the City of Winter Haven, and that it was ousted property and immune from taxation by the City of Winter Haven.”
Establishes the central dispute between the parties regarding whether ousted property remained subject to municipal taxation.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceProperty owners sought to enjoin the City of Winter Haven from assessing and collecting taxes on land that had been part of the city but was later ous…
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 Municipal Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw
The final decree we review adjudicated the right of appellee to assess and collect some taxes on a portion of the “ousted part” of the City of Winter Haven. The Chancellor personally heard the testimony on bill and answer and viewed and inspected (pursuant to stipulation) the land involved. The City of Winter Haven claimed it was furnishing municipal benefits, advantages, privileges, and had de facto authority to impose municipal taxes on the property involved. The owners of the property involved contradicted this by bill for injunction (some of the plaintiffs joined in the bill of complaint after it was filed) to enjoin the assessment and collection of taxes due and to become due on said land on the ground that the property was not benefited by municipal benefits from the City of Winter Haven, and that it was *116ousted property and immune from taxation by the City of Winter Haven. The City of Winter Haven claimed the right of contribution of taxes from this property by reason of bonded indebtedness that accrued when the land was incorporated as a part of the City of Winter Haven. See Laws of Florida, 1925, Chapter 11301, and Laws of Florida, 1925, Chapter 11299.
The procedure to exempt property from taxation alleged not to be subject to municipal taxation and resorted to by appellants is generally outlined in City of Sarasota v. Skillin, 13 Fla. 724, 178 So. 837. The lower court held part of the property involved subject to a tax of 33 1/3% of its present assessed cash value for the taxes that were Unpaid; a part of the property liable for 50% of thé assessed tax value for the years unpaid, and directed the payment thereof in thirty-three days and in default of such payment provisions for collection of said taxes by foreclosure were specified.
Other property involved was held to be exempt from taxes from the first assessment by the City thenceforward. We feel, under City of Winter Haven v. Klemm, 132 Fla. 334, 181 So. 153; 133 Fla. 525, 182 So. 841; 141 Fla. 75, 192 So. 646; 141 Fla. 60, 192 So. 652; Coral Gables v. State, 148 Fla. 671, 5 So. (2) 241; Richmond v. Town of Largo, 155 Fla. 226, 19 So. (2) 791, the tax liability adjudicated was war-wanted. As to the amount of tax liability imposed the adjudication was based on testimony that is substantial and reasonable, and as the Chancellor carefully viewed and inspected the property (under the stipulation), that adds to the weight of his opinion on the facts, and, under familiar rules of this Court on review of the evidence to sustain a decree, this final decree must be upheld. Budd v. Gooch, 151 Fla. 262, 9 So. (2) 633, 1 Encl. Digest of Fla. Reports, p. 326, et seq., Art. 169, Ibid. 1946 Cum. Supp., p. 113, et seq., Art. 169.
We find no harmful error in the final decree appealed from, and the same is hereby affirmed.
THOMAS, C. J., TERRELL and CHAPMAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Thomas v. Moorman, 199 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 1967)…mesne conveyances. “Petitioner filed this suit in equity on March 25, 1946, seeking to set aside the tax deed by reason of § 205 of the Soldiers’ and Sailors Civil Relief Act. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a judgment denying the relief, Fla., 31 So. 2d 155, on the authority of its earlier decision in De Loach v. Calihan, [158] Fla. [639], 30 So. 2d 910. The case is here on a petition for a writ of certiorari which we granted because the construction given to the federal Act seemed to us not only a dub…
-
Le Maistre v. Leffers, 333 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1948)…onveyances. Petitioner filed this suit in equity on March 25, 1946, seeking to set aside the tax deed by reason of § 205 of the Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Civil Relief Act. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a judgment denying the relief, 159 Fla. 122, 31 So. 2d 155, on the authority of its earlier decision in De Loach v. Calihan, 158 Fla. 639, 30 So. 2d 910. The case is here on a petition for a writ of certiorari which we granted because the construction given to the federal Act seemed to us not only a dubious…
Authorities Cited
- The City of Winter Haven v. A. M. Klemm & Son, 132 Fla. 334 (Fla. 1938)
- The City of Sarasota v. Skillin, 130 Fla. 724 (Fla. 1937)
- City of Coral Gables v. State, 148 Fla. 671 (Fla. 1941)
- Richmond v. Town OF Largo, 155 Fla. 226 (Fla. 1944)
- Casol Justice v. State, 130 Fla. 777 (Fla. 1937)
- The City of Winter Haven v. A. M. Klemm & Son, 141 Fla. 75 (Fla. 1939)
- The City of Winter Haven v. A. M. Klemm & Son, 133 Fla. 525 (Fla. 1938)
- A. M. Klemm & Son v. The City of Winter Haven, 141 Fla. 60 (Fla. 1939)
- Budd v. J. Y. Gooch Co., Inc, 151 Fla. 262 (Fla. 1942)