FORD S. HAUSMAN, ORANGE COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER, APPELLANT,
v.
FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF PINE HILLS, INC., APPELLEE
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.
A church is entitled to religious property tax exemption for vacant, unimproved land used sporadically for religious purposes, even without continuous use or improvements, provided the use is exclusive and not incidental to nonexempt use.
A church qualifies for religious property tax exemption on vacant, unimproved land if the land is actually and presently used for religious purposes, even if such use is sporadic and not evidenced by improvements or continuous occupancy, provided the use is exclusive and not incidental to nonexempt use.
[1] A church is entitled to religious property tax exemption for unimproved land used sporadically for religious purposes if the use is exclusive and not incidental to nonexe…
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 intelligenceThe Property Appraisal Adjustment Board granted a religious exemption for a church's unimproved tract of land. The county property appraiser challenge…
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.
PER CURIAM.
This case involves the entitlement of a church to religious exemption from the taxes on an unimproved tract of land.
The Property Appraisal Adjustment Board granted an exemption, appellant county property appraiser filed suit, suffered an adverse summary judgment and appeals. We affirm.
The county property appraiser contends that because the land in question is vacant and unimproved and is not continuously used by the church, a religious exemption was improper. At the hearing on the church’s motion for summary judgment, the evidence was undisputed that while, as the county property appraiser claims, the land was substantially vacant and unimproved and was not used by the church continuously, nevertheless, the land was being actually and presently used by the church for religious purposes sporadically and improvements and greater physical use were planned. The church’s present religious use of the property, while not evidenced by improvements and not continuous, was exclusive of any other use and was not incidental to any nonexempt use. Accordingly, the trial court correctly entered summary judgment. See Lummus v. Miami Beach Congregational Church, 142 Fla. 657, 195 So. 607 (Fla.1940); Grady v. Hausman, 509 So. 2d 1316 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987).
AFFIRMED.
UPCHURCH, C.J., and ORFINGER and COWART, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jermetras Watson v. State, 260 So. 3d 1180 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)
Authorities Cited
- Lummus v. The Miami Beach Congregational Church, 142 Fla. 657 (Fla. 1940)
- Grady v. Ford Hausman, 509 So. 2d 1316 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)