RALPH FREDERICKS, APPELLANT,
v.
A. H. BLAKE, PROPERTY APPRAISER FOR METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA; HARRY COE, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, 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 held that the taxpayer's complaint for injunctive relief was properly dismissed because he failed to exhaust administrative remedies and the requested injunction was moot as the tax rolls had already been approved.
[1] A taxpayer seeking injunctive relief against tax assessment must allege a special injury distinct from that sustained by other taxpayers, unless the challenge attacks the…
[2] A taxpayer's property is considered specially injured if it is assessed at more than 100% of its fair market value or if substantially all other property in the taxing un…
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA taxpayer filed a complaint to enjoin the approval of preliminary tax assessment rolls, alleging they were illegal due to unequal assessments. The tr…
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 Mootness cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Ralph Fredericks, plaintiff-taxpayer, appeals an order dismissing with prejudice his complaint to enjoin state approval of the 1978 preliminary tax assessment rolls for Dade County.
On July 11, 1978, Ralph Fredericks, as owner of taxable real properties in Dade County, filed a complaint to invalidate the preliminary 1978 tax assessment rolls and named as defendants Dade County, the property appraiser A.
H. Blake, and Harry Coe as executive director of the State of Florida, Department of Revenue. Freder-icks basically alleged that the tax rolls were a mixture of dissimilar and unequal assessments and, therefore, illegal. He requested that the court enjoin approval of the 1978 Dade County preliminary tax rolls by the Department of Revenue and all tax complaint hearings to be held pursuant to Section 194.032, Florida Statutes (1977).
He also asked that a tax appraiser ad litem be appointed by the court. Defendants Dade County, Blake and Coe filed motions to dismiss listing numerous grounds including lack of standing, failure to exhaust administrative remedies, failure to enjoin indispensable parties, absence of allegations of irreparable injury, etc. After a hearing, the court entered the order dismissing with prejudice Fredericks’ complaint for injunctive relief for the reasons of failure to exhaust administrative remedies and mootness in that the preliminary tax roll had already been approved (while the action was pending).
Fredericks appeals therefrom.
We affirm.
An injunction is a drastic remedy which should be granted cautiously and sparingly and the essential requisites for an injunction are lack of a full, complete remedy at law and prevention of irreparable injury. Parrish v. Joyner, 54 So. 2d 50 (Fla. 1951); Stoner v. South Peninsular Zoning Commission, 75 So. 2d 831 (Fla.1954).
Thus, a taxpayer of the state or county has standing to bring an action for a declaratory decree and/or injunctive relief against the proper public officials to restrain the unlawful exercise of the state or county’s taxing or spending authority only upon a showing of a special injury to such taxpayer which is distinct from that sustained by every other taxpayer in the taxing unit. Department of Administration v. Horne, 269 So. 2d 659 (Fla.1972); Paul v. Blake, 376 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); see also City of Coral Springs v. Florida Nat. Properties, 340 So. 2d 1271, 1272 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976).
As in the instant case where the taxpayer is contesting an assessment, he or she must allege (as special injury) that his or her property is either being assessed at greater than 100% of its fair market value or that substantially all other property in the county is systematically assessed at a value less than the assessment of his or her property. Deltona Corporation v. Bailey, 336 So. 2d 1163, 1167-68 (Fla.1976).
Fredericks’ complaint for injunctive relief contains no allegations of special injury.
We further find that the allegations of the complaint fail to fall within the exception to the special injury standing requirement. A taxpayer may institute a suit without a showing of special injury if he attacks the exercise of the state or county’s taxing or spending authority on the ground that it exceeds specific limitations imposed on the state or county’s taxing or spending power by the United States or Florida Constitutions. Paul v. Blake, 376 So. 2d 256, 259 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), supra. Outside of the broad unsupported allegation that the 1978 tax rolls are in violation of Article 7, Section 1 of the Florida Constitution (which states: “No tax shall be levied except in pursuance of law”) Fredericks’ complaint fails to allege violations of specific provisions of the Florida Constitution relating solely to the county’s taxing power. In addition, Fredericks has failed to demonstrate that there are no full, complete and adequate remedies at law available to him. The legislature has prescribed a comprehensive procedure for supervision and review of the preliminary rolls. See e. g.
Sections 193.114(5), (6), 195.097, 195.098, Florida Statutes (1977). The injury, if any, could possibly occur only upon completion of the above supervision and review. Compare Town of Palm Beach v. Palm Beach County, 332 So. 2d 355 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976).
Fredericks was required to first exhaust his administrative remedies as he lacked standing to invoke the original jurisdiction of the circuit court. See Monroe County v. Gustinger, 285 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973).
Upon receipt of his property assessment he can, and in fact did, pursuant to Section 194.011(3), Florida Statutes (1977) file a petition raising the same objections to his assessment and then be entitled to a hearing before the Property Appraisal Adjustment Board as provided by Section 194.032, Florida Statutes (1977).
Fredericks may possibly obtain the relief desired before the Board which may make such substantial changes in the final rolls that Fred-ericks will have no complaint. Alternatively, if he is dissatisfied with the Board’s action, he may then file suit in circuit court as provided by Section 194.171, Florida Statutes (1977).
There are additional reasons why we feel compelled to affirm the dismissal order. By its very nature an injunction will lie only to restrain commission of a future injury since it is impossible to prevent what has already occurred. City of Coral Springs v. Florida Nat. Properties, 340 So. 2d 1271, 1272 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976), supra. After the filing of the instant complaint to enjoin approval of the preliminary rolls, but prior to a hearing on the complaint, defendant Coe approved the rolls and, therefore, an injunction could not issue.
Further, an injunction will not be granted in cases where it is readily apparent that it will result in confusion and disorder and produce an injury to the public that outweighs the individual right of the complainant to have the relief sought. 17 Fla.Jur. Injunctions § 26 (1958). The granting of Fredericks’ requested injunction would deprive the county and other taxing authorities of the orderly and timely receipt of essential revenues as well as precluding defendant Coe from performing his duties pursuant to Section 195.097, Florida Statutes (1977) and all subsequent administrative review.
For the reasons stated herein we conclude that the complaint for injunctive relief would not lie under the circumstance presented by the instant case.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Alachua Cnty. v. Scharps, 855 So. 2d 195 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)…specific limitations imposed upon a city in taxing or spending by the Florida Constitution.... [M]ere statutory violations did not constitute ‘violations of specific provisions of the Florida Constitution.’ ” Id. at 688 (quoting Fredericks v. Blake, 382 So. 2d 368, 370 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)). Similarly in City of Atlantic Beach v. Bull, 476 So. 2d 158 (Fla.1985), the plaintiff relied on the same theory of standing which appellee argues here: he is a citizen, resident and taxpayer, and the local government’s acti…
-
Fla. Land Co. v. Orange Cnty., 418 So. 2d 370 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)…nting the injunction than denying it, or where the granting of an injunction will result in confusion, disorder and injury to the public outweighing any individual right to relief the complainant may have. 351 So. 2d at 44. In Fredericks v. Blake, 382 So. 2d 368 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), the Third District Court of Appeal reiterated that an injunction will not be granted where it is readily apparent that it will result in confusion and disorder and produce an injury to the public that outweighs the individual rig…
-
Earnest Stanberry, Jr. v. Escambia Cnty., 813 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)…sion and disorder, and will produce an injury to the public which out [*281] weighs the individual right of the complainant to have the relief he seeks.”); Fla. Land Co. v. Orange County, 418 So. 2d 370, 372 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Fredericks v. Blake, 382 So. 2d 368, 371 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). The apparent adequacy of remedies at law which Mr. Stanberry has thus far successfully pursued weighs, moreover, against resort to injunctive remedies. See, e.g., Orlando Sports Stadium, Inc. v. State ex rel. Powell, 262 So…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Dep't OF Admin. v. Mallory E. Horne, 269 So. 2d 659 (Fla. 1972)
- The Deltona Corp. v. Bailey, 336 So. 2d 1163 (Fla. 1976)
- Paul v. Al Blake, 376 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- City OF Coral Springs v. Fla. Nat'l Props., Inc., 340 So. 2d 1271 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)
- Stoner v. S. Peninsula Zoning Comm'n, 75 So. 2d 831 (Fla. 1954)
- Monroe Cnty. v. Gustinger, 285 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)
- Town OF Palm Beach v. Palm Beach Cnty., 332 So. 2d 355 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)