THE GLADES, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION; CONNIE HUBSCHMAN AND SAMUEL HUBSCHMAN, TRUSTEES, APPELLANTS,
v.
SAM J. COLDING AS PROPERTY APPRAISER FOR COLLIER COUNTY, AND GUY CARLTON, AS TAX COLLECTOR FOR COLLIER COUNTY, 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.
This case involves an appeal by The Glades, Inc. and its trustees regarding the denial of agricultural tax classifications for certain portions of their property. The appellate court affirmed the denial for one section but reversed it for another, finding the lower court's reasoning insufficient.
Yes, the trial court erred in denying the agricultural tax classification for the Yellow Area. However, the denial for Red Area III was proper due to insufficient plant density and flooding issues.
[1] A bona fide commercial agricultural operation may qualify for agricultural tax classification, even if the land is platted or has a history of development.
[2] Once a court finds land is being used in good faith for a bona fide agricultural purpose, prior or future uses of the land are irrelevant for tax classification purposes.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Given his previous specific finding in accordance with the statute that the Yellow Area had been continuously used in good faith for agricultural purposes since its reacquisition in 1979, these reasons are insufficient to support a denial of an agricultural tax classification for the Yellow Area.”
Establishes the error in denying classification for the Yellow Area.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Glades, Inc. and its trustees own several tracts of land, some of which have been used for agricultural purposes, including a retail and wholesale…
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 Bona Fide Agricultural Use cases and more on FLexlaw
CAMPBELL, Judge.
The Glades, Inc., a Florida condominium development corporation, and its trustees, Connie and Samuel Hubschman, appeal that portion of the final judgment which denied them an agricultural tax classification on portions of their property. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
The Glades, Inc., owns 8.2 acres of land known as the Yellow Area. The Hubsch-mans own a 2.3 acre tract called the Green Area, and a 66.02 acre tract known as the Red Area. The Red Area is subdivided into Parts I, II and III. The Hubschman family purchased these tracts in 1965 for approximately $1200 an acre. Before, and at the time of the purchase, the tracts had been used primarily for agricultural purposes.
The Yellow Area was sold in 1972, but in-1979, the Hubschmans reacquired it through The Glades, Inc., as part of an expansion of the Glades Nursery — their retail and wholesale nursery operation. Prior to 1972, the Yellow Area was subdivided and a cul-de-sac which gave road access into the property was constructed.
The Glades Nursery began operations in 1968 on property known as the White Area. It abuts the Yellow Area to the east. During the 1970’s, the nursery began cultivating thousands of exotic plants and trees, and as the nursery continued to grow, the owners planted coconut trees and other plants in the Red Area. They planted the Green Area in 1976. When The Glades, Inc., acquired the Yellow Area in 1979, the corporation installed a sprinkler system and then planted a variety of plants in that area.
The property owners received an agricultural tax classification on Red Area I from 1974 through 1979, and received similar classifications on Red Area II, and the Green Area, for 1977-1979. Red Area III received a like classification in 1979. Only the Yellow Area has not received such a classification.
In 1980, pursuant to section 193.461(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1979), the property owners filed a return and application for agricultural classification of lands with the Collier County property appraiser. On July 9, 1980, the appraiser denied agricultural classification. The property owners appealed to the Collier County Property Appraisal Adjustment Board, but the board upheld the denial. In 1981, they again filed for an agricultural property classification and were again denied. They then sought relief in the circuit court.
In his final judgment, the trial judge found, pursuant to section 193.461(3)(b), Florida Statutes (1979), that based on all the evidence presented, “the Glades Nursery is in fact a bona fide commercial agricultural operation.” He found specifically that Red Areas I and II and the Green and Yellow Areas had been in good faith continuously so used. The court then upheld denial of agricultural classification for Red Area III and for the Yellow Area.
The court found that Red Area III did not contain a sufficient number of plants to qualify as bona fide agricultural use. There is evidence to sustain this finding because frequent flooding of this low-lying area prevents its full use and plants are only sparsely scattered in this area. We, therefore, affirm that portion of the final judgment upholding the denial of an agricultural tax classification for Red Area III.
The trial judge upheld the denial of agricultural tax classification for the Yellow Area for the following reasons:
(1) a road and cul-de-sac exists leading in to the property, as part of a platted subdivision, and therefore the property appears suitable for immediate development; and (2) this parcel has not had the history of agricultural use that the other properties in question have had. And the high purchase price reflects that of developed land.
Given his previous specific finding in accordance with the statute that the Yellow Area had been continuously used in good faith for agricultural purposes since its reacquisition in 1979, these reasons are insufficient to support a denial of an agricultural tax classification for the Yellow Area. Once the court finds a bona fide good faith agricultural use pursuant to section 193.-461(3)(b), the prior or future use of the land is irrelevant. See Fisher v. Schooley, 371 So. 2d 496 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). The purchase price of land is one of the factors listed in section 193.461(3)(b) to be used in determining whether or not that land is being used primarily for a bona fide good faith agricultural purpose. Once that determination is made, the purchase price is no longer important. Therefore, having made the initial finding of a bona fide good faith agricultural use, the trial judge erred in considering the possible future development of the Yellow Area, in considering its brief history of agricultural use, and in considering its purchase price.
We note finally that the property owners filed a motion to tax costs in this action. We deny this motion because of our disposition of this appeal.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART and REMANDED.
OTT, C.J, and SCHOONOVER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Love PGI P'rs, LP v. Schultz, 706 So. 2d 887 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)…o the presumption of correctness or the necessity to show that no reasonable hypothesis supported the property appraiser’s determination. Davis v. St. Joe Paper Co.; Wilkinson v. Kirby, 654 So. 2d 194 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); The Glades, Inc. v. Golding, 422 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). [*894] If this record contained any disputed material facts concerning whether Sugarmill or its lessee was using these lands for a bona fide cattle grazing operation on January 1, 1994, we would remand this cause to the trial cou…
-
Ridgewood Phosphate Corp. & Int'l Minerals & Chem. Corp. v. Perkins, 487 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)…and its preparatory activities for that future use were insufficient to deny agricultural classification. Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Walden, 277 So. 2d 815 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert. denied, 284 So. 2d 217 (Fla.1973). See also The Glades, Inc. v. Colding, 422 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Fisher. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion. SCHOONOVER and SANDERLIN, JJ., concur.…
-
Marie E. Gianolio under the Marie E. Gianolio Revocable Tr. Agreement Dated March 14 v. Markham, 564 So. 2d 1131 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)…ed, 518 So. 2d 1277 (Fla.1987), the second district, in discussing what effect the owner’s intended future use of the land should have on the determination of agricultural classification, stated: “As this court stated in The Glades, Inc. v. Colding, 422 So. 2d 349, 351 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982), ‘[o]nce the court finds a bona fide good faith agricultural use ... the ... future use of the land is irrelevant’.” (citation omitted). Id. at 729. Cases which have considered the owner’s intended future use of the property…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Fisher v. Schooley, 371 So. 2d 496 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)