PHILLIP A. THOMAS, SANDRA E. POSTEL AND TAYLOR BROWN, APPELLANTS,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, AND DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEES

Fla. 3d DCA | 1984-07-24
No. 84-180
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and HUB-BART and NESBITT, JJ.
453 So. 2d 192 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1984)

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.

Synopsis

Thomas and other taxpayers challenged Chapter 83-220, Laws of Florida, which authorized certain counties to impose a documentary surtax for low and moderate income housing assistance, arguing it was an invalid special or local law enacted without required constitutional notice provisions. The court affirmed the statute's validity as a general law, relying on a parallel case with identical legal issues.


Holding

Chapter 83-220 is a valid general law, not an invalid special or local law. The statute and county ordinance are constitutional and valid.


Headnotes

[1] A law is a valid general law, not an invalid special or local law, if it applies to all counties defined by a specific statute.

[2] A law authorizing a documentary surtax for housing assistance is a valid general law if it applies to counties as defined by Section 125.011(1), Florida Statutes.

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

Key Quotes

“On the point in issue here, the two statutes and thus the two cases are indistinguishable. We therefore affirm the judgment below on the authority of Golden Nugget.”

The court's rationale for affirming based on the parallel case involving identical legal issues

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Chapter 83-220 created sections 125.0167 and 201.031 of the Florida Statutes, permitting only those 'counties as defined by s.125.011(1)' to impose a …

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

This appeal seeks reversal of a judgment upholding the constitutionality of Chapter 83-220, Laws of Florida, which created Sections 125.0167 and 201.031 of the Florida Statutes. The appellants contend that the act, which permits only those “countpes] as defined by s.125.011(1),” to impose a documentary surtax

for the purpose of assisting low and moderate income families in the purchase and rehabilitation of their homes, is invalid as a local or special law enacted without adherence to the notice provisions of Art. Ill, Section 10 of the Florida Constitution.2 In Metropolitan Dade County v. Golden Nugget Group, 448 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), rev. granted, Case no. 65,324 (Fla., June 29, 1984), this court rejected the identical contentions in concluding that Chapter 83-354, Laws of Florida, which similarly authorizes those counties designated in Sec. 125.011(1) to levy a tax on rentals and leases for tourism development was a valid general law. On the point in issue here,3 the two statutes and thus the two cases are indistinguishable. We therefore affirm the judgment below on the authority of Golden Nugget.

In the light of the Supreme Court’s acceptance of jurisdiction in Golden Nugget and the independent significance of the issue, we certify to the Supreme Court that this decision passes upon the following question of great public importance:

Whether Chapter 83-220, Laws of Florida is a valid general law or an invalid special or local one.

Affirmed, question certified.

. Dade County in fact enacted the authorized surtax. Dade County Ordinance No. 83-81 (1983). The present action challenges that ordinance as well as the enabling statute from which it derives.

. It is also argued that the ordinance imposing the tax, note 1, supra, contravenes Art. VIII, Section II, Florida Constitution of 1885, as amended, the Dade County Home Rule Charter, which states that the county may levy only those taxes "authorized by general law.”

.The appellants raise a separate question concerning the scope of an exception from the tax which we consider completely without merit.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw