R. L. DIXON AND MARGARET A. DIXON, HIS WIFE, AND ALL PERSONS WHO ARE OWNERS OF, HAVE ANY INTEREST IN, OR RIGHT TO, OR LIENS ON THE REAL ESTATE HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED, (EXCEPT AS TENANTS), AND THE REAL ESTATE HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED, APPELLANTS,
v.
CITY OF COCOA, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, 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.
The Florida Supreme Court reversed a lower court's decision overruling a demurrer in a tax foreclosure case, holding that the property description in the city's assessment roll was fatally insufficient to support a valid tax lien. The court held that tax assessments require descriptions with greater strictness than ordinary deeds, and must either be self-contained or refer to recorded documents that clarify the property's location.
The court held that the assessment is invalid because the description in the assessment roll is entirely inadequate and insufficient. A tax assessment description must describe the land with such accuracy that it can be located and identified with ordinary and reasonable certainty, and must either be self-contained or refer to recorded deeds or documents that clarify the description. The bare reference to "All of lot 6, Robert Dixon's Homestead, ex. to E. C. Johnson and Fairview Land Co." did not meet this standard.
“The description contained in the Tax Roll would not be sufficient to protect the lands from reassessment under the description which is set forth in the bill as a correct description of the lands.”
Explains why the assessment roll description is inadequate—it fails to prevent the property from being reassessed differently.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe City of Cocoa filed suit to enforce a tax lien for unpaid taxes in 1928 and 1929 against R. L. Dixon. The assessment roll described the property 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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Tax Lien Enforcement cases and more on FLexlaw
The City of Cocoa filed suit to enforce *856an alleged lien for unpaid taxes for the years 1928 and 1929. The bill alleged that the lands were assessed in the name of the owner and that the description and assessment on the assessment roll was as follows:
Amount of
“Owner Description Valuation Taxes
R. L. Dixon
All of lot 6, Robert Dixon’s Homestead, ex. to E. C. Johnson and Fairview Land Co.
$45,000
$585.00”
There was a demurrer filed» to the bill of complaint. By the demurrer the questions were raised as to whether or not the description used in the assessment roll was sufficient and whether or not. the complainant stated a case under which it could have the relief prayed. The bill alleges that the lands sought to be assessed are described as follows:
“All of lot No. 6 of the Subdivision of Robert Dixon’s . Homestead, as shown by a plat of said subdivision recorded in the public records of Brevard County, except that portion of said lot conveyed to Fairview Land Company, now owned by Crest View Inc., (the same lying on the south side of said lot 6, and being a strip clear across said lot from east to' west, the north and south lines being parallel, and the western line of which is 249.26 feet) and except that portion conveyed to E. C. Johnson (lying immediately north of the Fairview Land Company tract and being a strip clear across said lot from east to west, the north and south lines being parallel, and the western line of which is 117.48 feet) said land being portions of section 20 and 21, township 24 south, range 36 east, and being in the City of Cocoa, Brevard County, Florida, excepting therefrom the right of way of the Florida East Coast Railway and the right of way of New Dixie Highway.”
The bill prays foreclosure of its lien as against the lands so described. A comparison of the two descriptions shows clearly that the description used in the assessment roll is *857entirely inadequate. The description is no more definite than it would have been read:
Amount of
“Owner Description Valuation Taxes
R.L. Dixon Part of Lot 6 $45,000 $585.00”
The bill does not allege that anything appears on the Tax Roll which clarifies or make more definite the description. The description contained in the Tax Roll would not be sufficient to protect the lands from reassessment under the description which is set forth in the bill as a correct description of the lands. The description neither describes the land so it may be located by reference thereto nor as is required by Section 718 R. G. S. 1920, 920 C. G. L. 1927, which provides in part:
“that when private surveys of land or descriptions by metes and bounds have taken the place of government surveys, and the land is known, designated and described only by such private surveys or metes and bounds, the description in the assessment shall be made in accordance with such surveys or descriptions as recorded in the office of the clerk of the circuit court, or by reference to deed of record, giving the book and page as appears in the office of the clerk of the circuit court.”
See Johnson v. Benbow, 93 Fla. 324, 111 South. Rep. 504.
The assessment is invalid because of insufficiency of the description. Gruson v. Furman, 22 Fla. 581; Miller v. Lundstrum, 45 Fla. 473, 33 South. Rep. 521; Porter v. Key West, 69 Fla. 357, 69 South. Rep. 175; F. E. C. Ry. Co. v. Mitchell, 80 Fla. 291, 85 South. Rep. 661.
As the description is invalid the complainant was not entitled to a decree of foreclosure as against lands described otherwise and which may be, so far as the assessment roll shows, either the same or some other lands.
The description in the assessment roll here under consideration refers to no other deeds or records which may be looked to for the purpose of aiding the description. In *858Jarrell v. McRainey, 65 Fla. 141, 61 Sou. 240, this court held:
“greater strictness is required of the description o'f the land contained in a tax deed than in voluntary deeds. The land must be described with such accuracy that with ordinary and reasonable certainty the land sold can be ascertained and identified. A tax deed is void for uncertainty in which the land is described as ‘lot 3 and the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter less seven acres (lot 3, and N. E. % of N. W. % less seven acres) of Section five (5), Township forty-eight (48), Range four (4) West’: 2 Devlin on Deeds (3rd ed.) Sec. 1405; Johnson v. Ashland Lumber Co., 52 Wis. 458, 9 N. W. Rep. 464; Alleman v. Hammond, 209 Ill. 70, 70 N. E. Rep. 661; Green v. McGrew, 35 Ind. App. 104, 72 N. E. Rep. 1049; 73 N. E. Rep. 832; 111 Am. St. Rep. 149. The description of property in a tax deed must be certain in itself, or at least capable of being made certain by matters referred to in the deed itself as relating to the description, and evidence aliunde not referred to in the deed cannot be used to ascertain the land intended to be conveyed. See Power v. Bowdle, 3 N. Dak. 107, 54 N. W. Rep. 404, 44 Am. St. Rep. 511; Wofford v. McKinna, 23 Tex. 36, 76 Am. Dec. 53.”
The order overruling the demurrer should be reversed and it is so ordered.
Reversed.
Ellis and Brown, J.J., concur.
Whitfield, P.J., and Terrell and Davis, J.J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ranger Realty Co. v. Caspar Hefty, 112 Fla. 654 (Fla. 1933)…personam. The description contained in the tax roll should be sufficient to protect the land from reassessment for the same taxes under the description stated in the bill of complaint to be a correct description of the land. Dixon v. City of Cocoa, 106 Fla. 855, 143 So. 748. • “Description in assessment roll which makes it possible for surveyor, with aid of tax record, to identify property with reasonable accuracy, is sufficient.” Inter-City Sec. Co. w. Barbee, 143 So. 791. Even if the description of the…
-
Mitchell v. Moore, 152 Fla. 843 (Fla. 1943)…alty Co. v. Hefty, 112 Fla. 654, 152 So. 439 and Brickell v. Graves Inv. Co., 150 Fla. 785, 9 So. (2nd) 733, are not, in our opinion, in point here. There is a vital difference in the descriptions involved. And in the case of Dixon v. City of Cocoa, 106 Fla. 855, 143 So. 748, the description contained in a bill to enforce a tax lien was merely this: “All of lot 6, Robert Dixon’s Homestead, ex. to E. C. Johnson and Fairview Land Co.” This description was held insufficient and void, and we think correctly so.…
-
Belle C. Brickell v. Palbicke, 123 Fla. 508 (Fla. 1936)…oted that the descriptions contained in the certificates are not identical. When we compare the description contained in the State and county certificate with the certificate under consideration in the case of Dixon, et [*511] al., v. City of Cocoa, 106 Fla. 855, 143 Sou. 784, we find that the description before us now is as fatally defective as was the description in that case. The description calls for Lot 1 * * * and less 220 ft. * * * etc. Where is that 220 ft. which is lifted out of the assessment? Its…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Fla. E. Coast Fruit Land Co. v. Mitchell, 80 Fla. 291 (Fla. 1920)
- Jarrell v. McRainey, 65 Fla. 141 (Fla. 1913)
- Grissom v. Furman, 22 Fla. 581 (Fla. 1886)
- State v. Anderson, 111 So. 504 (La. 1927)
- Miller v. Swan S. Lindstrom, 45 Fla. 473 (Fla. 1903)
- Louisa Porter and J. Y. Porter v. The City of Key W., 69 Fla. 357 (Fla. 1915)