FLORIDA GROWERS, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
THE CITY OF STUART, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, ET AL., 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.
Florida Growers challenged municipal tax assessments by the City of Stuart for 1926-1928, alleging they were invalid under state law and seeking to enjoin tax certificate sales. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's dismissal, holding that appellants failed to demonstrate the requisite willful and flagrant fraud or intentional discrimination necessary to invalidate tax assessments without paying the tax as constitutionally required.
The court held that appellants failed to bring themselves within the established rule permitting enjoinment of taxes without payment. While the rule permits injunction when a tax assessor intentionally omits large amounts of property from assessment of the same class, appellants did not allege or prove that the assessor perpetrated willful and flagrant fraud, treated appellants' lands differently from other lands of the same class, or intentionally omitted taxable property for an improper purpose.
“when a tax assessor impose an assignment on a designated class of property of one owner and intentionally or purposely fails to assess large amounts of other property belonging to the same class and subject to assessment the first assessment amounts to an unlawful discrimination and may be enjoined without paying any part of the tax”
Establishes the legal rule for when tax assessments may be enjoined without constitutional payment requirement—requiring intentional omission of comparable property
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFlorida Growers filed a bill of complaint against the City of Stuart seeking to invalidate tax assessments on their lands for municipal purposes for 1…
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.
Appellants filed their bill of complaint against appellees seeking to invalidate the tax assessments imposed on their lands by appellees for municipal purposes for the years 1926, 1927 and 1928, to cancel all tax certificates that have been issued against said lands, and to grant appellants a temporary restraining order restrain--, ing appellee from selling their (appellants’) lands for the non-payment of municipal taxes. A temporary restraining order was granted as prayed for but was later dissolved. This appeal is from the decree dissolving the temporary restraining order and sustaining a demurrer to the bill of complaint.
Numerous errors are assigned but concisely stated appellant relies on the invalidity of Chapter 11214 Laws of Florida, Acts of 1925 as amended by Chapter 11750 Acts of 1925, and proceedings thereunder in the matter of assessing their lands as grounds for reversal.
Even if proper to adjudicate the validity of Chapter 11214 Acts of 1925 and the incorporation of appellee thereunder in this proceeding, under well recognized decisions of this Court we must refrain from doing so as the invalidity complained of was at least in part cured by Chapter 14408 Special Acts of the Legislature of 1929, and then the judgment below may be affirmed and the cause disposed of on other grounds without passing on the validity of the act challenged. Carolina-Florida Planting Co. v. Maige, 64 Fla. 234, 60 So. 346; L. Maxcy, Inc. vs. Mayo, decided by this Court November 14, 1931.
As to the assessments complained of appellants rely for reversal on the rule approved by this Court in Roberts vs. American Nat’l Bank, 97 Fla. 411, 121 So. 554; Folsom vs. Bank of Greenwood, 97 Fla. 426, 120 So. 317; and Florida Land Co. vs. Graham, 97 Fla. 476, 121 So. 462.
*540In its application to the instant case the rule approved in these cases is to the effect that when a tax assessor impose an assignment on a designated class of property of one owner and intentionally or purposely fails to assess large amounts of other property belonging to the same class and subject to assessment the first assessment amounts to an unlawful discrimination and may be enjoined without paying any part of the tax as required by Section Eight of Article Nine of the Constitution because the validity of the entire tax is assaulted.
We do not think appellants bring themselves within this rule. True the bill of complaint alleges gross inequalities between the assessment of property located in the rural portion of the City of Stuart and that located in the business or settled portion of the city. It also alleges that some property in the city is omitted from the assessment roll, that other properties are assessed far above their value while still others are assessed much below their value but it is not alleged or shown that the assessor perpetrated a wilful and flagrant fraud on appellants in the assessment or that appellants’ lands are treated any different from other lands of the same class or that they are arbitrarily singled hut and discriminated against in the manner by which they were assessed, nor that taxable property was intentionally or wilfully omitted from the tax roll for an improper purpose. City of Tampa vs. Palmer, 89 Fla. 514, 105 So. 115.
Other questions raised have been considered but in the view we take of the case a discussion of them would serve no useful purpose.
The decree below is accordingly affirmed.
Affirmed.
Buford, C.J., and Whitfield and Davis, J.J., concur.
Ellis and Brown, J.J., dissent.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Coleman, 156 Fla. 413 (Fla. 1945)…ther meritorious grounds. State v. Parker, 57 Fla. 170, 49 So. 124; Lipman v. State, 72 Fla. 428, 73 So. 357; State v. Johnson, 102 Fla. 19, 135 So. 816; Crumbley v. City of Jacksonville, 102 Fla. 408, 135 So. 885; Florida Growers v. City of Stuart, 105 Fla. 538, 141 So. 735; State ex rel. Crim v. Juvenal, 118 Fla. 487, 159 So. 663. The judgment of remand is affirmed but with directions that unless an appropriate criminal charge is lodged against the appellant within 15 days of the going down of the mandat…
-
Stein v. Brown Props., Inc., 104 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 1958)…it has often been announced by this court that the constitutionality of an act will not be tested unless necessary to a decision of a controversy. State ex rel. McMullen v. Johnson, 102 Fla. 19, 135 So. 816; Florida Growers, Inc., v. City of Stuart, 105 Fla. 538, 141 So. 735; State ex rel. Losey v. Willard, Fla., 54 So. 2d 183. The appellee has advanced the argument that some sort of estoppel should be marked against the State because for many years taxes have been levied and collected on all the property,…
-
The Atl. Nat'l Bank of Jacksonville v. Simpson, 136 Fla. 809 (Fla. 1938)…able relief from illegal or unjust taxes that plaintiffs pay all taxes legally due (West Virginia Hotel Corporation v. Foster, 101 Fla. 1147, 132 So. 842, 846; Folsom v. Bank, 97 Fla. 426, 120 So. 317; Florida Growers, Inc., v. City of Stuart ]Fla.[ 141 So. 735), offer to pay such as may be found to be due, but they couple this offer with the positive affirmation that such determination is impossible, because the tax rolls are void, and they sue for a judgment so .declaring and relieving them and their pro…
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
- City of Tampa v. Palmer, 89 Fla. 514 (Fla. 1925)
- Hinton Folsom as Tax Collector v. Bank of Greenwood, 97 Fla. 426 (Fla. 1929)
- Roberts v. The Am. Nat'l Bank of Pensacola, 97 Fla. 411 (Fla. 1929)
- Fla. Land Co. v. Graham, 97 Fla. 476 (Fla. 1929)
- Carolina-Florida Planting Co. v. Maige, 64 Fla. 234 (Fla. 1912)