THE COUNTY OF DADE, FLORIDA, GEORGE B. BAKER, C. W. MCPHERSON, R. L. WALL, A. LEE ALLEN AND A. T. CARTER, AS COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND T. J. HARDEE, AS TAX COLLECTOR OF DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR
v.
M. C. HARDEE, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
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 Florida Supreme Court held that Section 2006 of the General Statutes, which permits petitions to challenge illegal assessments, applies only to defects in the assessment itself (the clerical act of recording property and tax information) and not to defects in the levy of taxes. The court reversed the lower court's judgment that invalidated a three-mill special road tax based on alleged publication defects.
Section 2006 provides a remedy only for illegality in the assessment—the clerical act of recording property information and tax amounts on assessment rolls—and does not extend to defects in the levy of taxes. Defects in the levy, including publication irregularities, cannot be reached by petition under Section 2006. The demurrer should have been sustained.
“This statute has a narrow sphere of action, as we have pointed out upon several occasions. The remedy by petition is summary and not co-extensive with that afforded by a court of equity to prevent the collection of taxes. It reaches illegality in matters of law connected with the assessment only, that is 'the clerical act of extending in the assessment rolls the name of the party assessed, the description of the property, the value as fixed by the proper tribunal, the millage for various purposes and the total amount of the tax.'”
Establishes the narrow scope of Section 2006 and defines what constitutes an illegal assessment under that statute.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceM. C. Hardee petitioned to have a three-mill special tax assessment for road purposes declared unlawful based on alleged irregularities or defects in …
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 Challenge To Tax Assessment cases and more on FLexlaw
Parkhill, J.
This was a proceeding under section 2006 of the General Statutes of 1906 on the petition of M. C. Hardee, the defendant in error, to have declared not lawfully made an assessment upon certain real estate of the petitioner in Dade County, by reason of a levy of a three mill special tax for road purposes imposed by the County Commissioners of said County.
The attack upon the assessment is directed to irregularities or defects, in publishing the notice of the intention of the board of County Commissioners to levy the tax. Section 850 of the General Statutes authorizes the board of County Commissioners, where they deem it de sirable and for the public good, to levy a special tax for public roads, bridges and river crossings not to exceed five mills on the dollar on all real and personal property in the County subject to taxation, provided, “that each board of County Commissioners before levying such tax give sixty days notice in at least one or two newspapers published in such County of their intention to-levy such tax.”
The petition • after being amended was demurred to upon the ground among others, that “section 2006 of the General Statutes of Florida, under which said proceeding is attempted to be bought, refers only to illegal assessments and not to the levy and collection of taxes, and lies only to correct illegal assessments, and not a discretionary act of the County Commissioners.”
The demurrer was overruled, an'answer was filed, and the court adjudged the assessment of the three mill special road tax not lawfully made.
The defendants sued out a writ of error, and assigned as error the overruling of the demurrer to the amended petition.
Section 2006 of the General Statutes reads as follows: “In all cases where assessments are made against any person, body politic or corporate, and payment of the same shall be refused upon allegation of the illegality of such assessment, such person, body corporate or politic, may apply to the judge of the Circuit Court by petition setting forth the alleged illegality, and present the same together with the evidence to sustain it, and the judge shall decide upon the same, and if found to be illegal shall declare the assessment not lawfully made.”
The statute is limited to cases where payment shall be refused upon allegation of the illegality of the assessment. The petition shows that payment was refused because of the illegality of the levy of the special tax. Publication of sixty days notice of the intention of the board of County Commissioners to levy the special road tax may be essential to the validity of the levy of such tax, but defects in the' levy of such tax cannot be reached by the petition under section 2006 of the General Statutes. This statute has a narrow sphere of action, as we have pointed out upon several occasions. The remedy by., petition is summary and not co-extensive with that afforded by a 'court of equity to prevent the collection of taxes. It reaches illegality in matters of law connected with the assessment only, that is “the clerical act of extending in the assessment rolls the name of the party assessed, the description of the property, the value as fixed by the proper tribunal, the millage for various purposes and the total amount of the tax.” Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Board of Public Instruction, 50 Fla. 222, 39 South. Rep. 480; Knight v. Matson, 53 Fla. 609, 43 South. Rep. 695.
As the defendants or illegalities sought to be reached by the petition in the instant case do not relate to the assessment but pertain to the levy of the tax, the demurrer should have been sustained, v
The judgment therefore is reversed with directions to sustain the demurrer and dismiss the petition.
Taylor and Hooker, JJ., concur. Shackleford, C. J., and Cockrell and Whitfield, JJ., concur in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Weinberger v. The Bd. of Pub. Instruction of St. Johns Cnty., 93 Fla. 470 (Fla. 1927)…ion which the Legislature may confer upon the Circuit Courts (see State ex rel. Young v. Duval County, 76 Fla. 180, 79 [*499] South. Rep. 692; Pugh v. Bowden, 54 Fla. 302, 45 South. Rep. 499; Phillips v. Town of Altamonte Springs, Fla., 110 So. 460; 56 Fla. 243,) and whatever ^may be the governing rules of procedure and adjudication, other than the requirement of due process of law, in exercising jurisdiction in such “other matters,” “cases in equity” and “cases at law” within the meaning of the Constituti…
-
Wetzel v. Town of Fort Myers, 59 Fla. 427 (Fla. 1910)…ordinance.” The prayer of the petition is that the assessment be declared illegal. The authority of the Circuit Judge under section 2006 of the General Statutes is merely to declare illegal any “assessment not lawfully made.” Dade County v. Hardee, 56 Fla. 243, 47. South. Rep. 350; Knight v. Matson, 53 Fla. 609, 43 South. Rep. 695; Louisville & N. R. R. Co. v. Board of Public Instruction, 50 Fla. 222, 39 South. Rep. 480. There is no allegation here of an assessment made under the levy provided by the ord…
-
Boley v. Roberts, 71 Fla. 660 (Fla. 1916)…nected with the actual assessment of property shall be considered. See Knight v. Matson, 53 Fla. 609, 43 South. Rep. 695; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Board of Public Instruction, 50 Fla. 222, 39 South. Rep. 480; Commissioners of Dade County v. Hardee, 56 Fla. 243, 47 South. Rep. 350; Jackson County v. Thornton, 44 Fla. 610, 33 South. Rep. 291. If the county commissioners failed to do their duty under the statute with reference to determining the amount of taxes to be raised when the levy is made, and such f…
Authorities Cited
- Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co. v. Bd. of Pub. Instruction for Jackson Cnty., 50 Fla. 222 (Fla. 1905)
- Knight v. Matson, 53 Fla. 609 (Fla. 1907)