CITY OF NORTH MIAMI, APPELLANT,
v.
RITA WILLIAMS, D/B/A "MRS. SONIA", 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.
The City of North Miami appealed a judgment invalidating its $1,875 annual occupation license fee for fortune tellers as an unreasonable revenue-raising device that exceeded statutory authority. The court affirmed, holding the fee was excessive and not a valid regulatory fee under Florida law.
The court held that the occupational license fee was invalid because: (1) it was so excessive as to go beyond the necessities of a reasonable revenue-raising device and was therefore unauthorized under Sections 205.042 and 205.043, Florida Statutes; and (2) it could not be sustained as a valid occupational regulatory fee under Section 166.221 because the city made no provision for regulating fortune tellers.
[1] An occupational license fee is invalid if it is so great as to be beyond the necessities of a reasonable revenue-raising device.
[2] An occupational license fee cannot be sustained as a valid occupational regulatory fee if the municipality has made no provision for the regulation of the occupation.
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“the occupational license fee is so great as to be beyond the necessities of a reasonable revenue-raising device and is therefore unauthorized under Sections 205.042, 205.043, Florida Statutes”
Establishes the core holding that the fee exceeded the city's statutory authority because it was unreasonably excessive
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRita Williams, a licensed fortune teller in North Miami from 1980-1987, was assessed a $1,875 annual occupation license fee, which was approximately t…
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 Statute Of Limitations cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the City of North Miami from a final judgment which declares Section 13-22, Computer Class No. 790.00 of the North Miami City Code to be invalid; this section of the Code imposes a $1,875.00 annual occupation license fee for fortune tellers — although the fee assessed for most other occupations in the city is less than 10% of that amount. The final judgment further orders that the plaintiff Rita Williams, a licensed fortune teller in the City of North Miami for the years 1980-87, be reimbursed $7,490 plus interest and costs by the City of North Miami for the license fees which the plaintiff paid to the City for the prior four years; the four-year limitation was imposed based on the applicable four-year statute of limitations. § 95.11(3), Fla.Stat. (1987).
We affirm the final judgment under review — save for that portion which reads “let execution issue,” which is hereby stricken, City of Haines City v. Allen, 549 So. 2d 678 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)—upon a holding that: (1) the occupational license fee is so great as to be beyond the necessities of a reasonable revenue-raising device and is therefore unauthorized under Sections 205.- 042, 205.043, Florida Statutes (1987).
Consolidated City of Jacksonville v. Dusenberry, 362 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978) ($1,000 occupational license fee for fortune tellers, clairvoyants, and astrologers held invalid); see City of Miami v. I.C. Sales, Inc., 276 So. 2d 214, 218 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 281 So. 2d 213 (Fla.1973); and (2) the occupational license fee cannot be sustained as a valid occupational regulatory fee under Section 166.221, Florida Statutes (1987), because the City of North Miami has made no provision, by ordinance or otherwise, for the regulation of fortune tellers, and, in fact, has assessed the instant fee as an occupational license fee and nothing else.
We reject the contention that the subject fee is somehow a hybrid license-regulatory fee; there is nothing in the record to support such a novel theory.
We find no merit in the balance of the points raised by the City of North Miami, and, save for the deletion of “let execution issue,” the final judgment under review is affirmed.
Affirmed as modified.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- The City OF Haines City v. Allen, 549 So. 2d 678 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)
- The City OF Miami v. I. C. Sales, Inc., 276 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)
- Archiable James Strickland v. Louie L. Wainwright, 281 So. 2d 213 (Fla. 1973)
- Fletcher v. Laguna Vista Corp., 281 So. 2d 213 (Fla. 1973)
- Consol. City OF Jacksonville v. Dusenberry, 362 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)