TIMOTHY "PETE" SMITH, ETC., ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
DONALD D. WELTON, ET UX., APPELLEES; ERNIE MASTROIANNI, ETC., ET AL., APPELLANTS, V. DORIS L. BOONE, 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 Florida Supreme Court held that section 193.155(8)(a) does not authorize property appraisers to retroactively correct errors in the base year 'just value' assessment of homestead property established under the 1992 constitutional amendment limiting homestead tax increases. The statute permits correction only of annual assessments made after the base year, not the base year itself.
Section 193.155(8)(a) does not authorize retroactive changes to the base year 'just value' assessment. The statute by its plain language applies only to errors in 'annual assessments' made after the base year is determined, not to errors in the base year assessment itself. Property appraisers therefore lack authority to reach back and correct mistakes in the initial base year valuation.
[1] A statute allowing correction of erroneous annual homestead assessments due to a material mistake of fact does not authorize retroactive changes to the base year "just va…
[2] The plain language of a statute referring to "annual assessment" does not encompass the base year "just value" assessment for homestead property.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“By its plain wording, section 193.155(8)(a) thus bestows no authority on a property appraiser to make a retroactive change in the base year assessment.”
Establishes the Court's plain language interpretation that the statute does not permit retroactive base year corrections
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceProperty appraiser Pete Smith in Okaloosa County increased the assessed value of Donald Welton's homestead property from $58,488 to $130,645 between 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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Just Value Assessment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We have on appeal Smith v. Welton, 710 So. 2d 135 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (declaring invalid section 193.155(8)(a), Florida Statutes (1995)), and Boone v. Mastroianni, 709 So. 2d 192 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (citing Smith as controlling authority). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. In Smith, the property appraiser in Oka-loosa County, “Pete” Smith, determined that he had mistakenly under-assessed for tax purposes 15,000 square feet of improvements to a 19,000 square-foot former school building that served as the homestead for Donald Welton. Smith increased the assessed value of the Welton property from $58,488 in 1994 to $130,645 in 1995. Welton filed a complaint in circuit court protesting the increase, and the court determined that the statute on which the property appraiser relied, i.e. section 193.155(8)(a), Florida Statutes (1995), was unconstitutional. On appeal, the district court affirmed, holding that section 193.155(8)(a) violates article VII, section 4, Florida Constitution, which sets forth guidelines for the taxing of homesteads. See Smith v. Welton, 710 So. 2d 135 (Fla.App.1998). Smith appealed to this Court.
In Mastroianni, the property appraiser in Duval County, Ernie Mastroianni, determined that he had mistakenly undervalued 1034 square feet of improvements to the homestead of a taxpayer, Doris Boone. Mas-troianni increased the value of the Boone property from a just value of $62,000 in 1994 to an assessed value of $91,518 in 1995. Boone protested, and the circuit court ruled in favor of Mastroianni, holding that section 193.155(8)(a) is constitutional. Boone appealed, and the district court reversed, citing its Smith decision. See Boone v. Mastroianni, 709 So. 2d 192 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). Mas-troianni appealed to this Court, and we consolidated the Smith and Mastroianni cases.
Florida citizens in 1992 amended the Florida Constitution by adopting proposed Amendment 10, which limited ad valorem taxation on homesteads. The amendment, which became effective January 5, 1993, called for the levying of a base year “just value” assessment for each homestead as of January 1,1994, and the restricting of subsequent increases in assessments to the lower of either (a) three percent of the prior year’s assessment, or (b) a percent change in the Consumer Price Index:
SECTION 4. Taxation; assessments. — By general law regulations shall be prescribed which shall secure a just valuation of all property for ad valorem taxation, provided:
(c) All persons entitled to a homestead exemption under Section 6 of this Article shall have their homestead assessed at just value as of January 1[, 199 j]. This assessment shall change only as provided herein.
1. Assessments subject to this provision shall be changed annually on January 1st of each year, but those changes in assessments shall not exceed the lower of the following:
(A) three percent (3%) of the assessment for the prior year. (B) the percent change in the Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers, U.S. City Average, all items 1967=100, or successor reports for the preceding calendar year as initially reported by the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
2. No assessment shall exceed just value.
3. After any change of ownership, as provided by general law, homestead property shall be assessed at just value as of January 1 of the following year. Thereafter, the homestead shall be assessed as provided therein.
4. New homestead property shall be assessed at just value as of January 1st of the year following the establishment of the homestead. That assessment shall only change as provided herein.
5. Changes, additions, reductions or improvements to homestead property shall be assessed as provided for by general law; provided, however, after the adjustment for any change, addition, reduction or improvement, the property shall be assessed as provided herein.
6. In the event of a termination of homestead status, the property shall be assessed as provided by general law.
Art. VII, § 4, Fla. Const, (emphasis added). The purpose of the amendment was explained by the district court below:
The purpose of the amendment is to encourage the preservation of homestead property in the face of ever increasing opportunities for real estate development, and rising property values and assess ments. The amendment supports the public policy of this state favoring preservation of homesteads. Similar policy considerations are the basis for the constitutional provisions relating to homestead tax exemption (Article VII, Section 6, Florida Constitution), exemption from forced sale (Article X, Section 4(a), Florida Constitution), and the inheritance and alienation of homestead (Article X, Section 4(e), Florida Constitution).
Smith, 710 So. 2d at 137 (footnote omitted). In brief, the amendment was designed to ensure that citizens on fixed incomes will not lose their homes on the tax block due to the rising value of Florida property.
In 1994, the legislature enacted legislation implementing Amendment 10. See Ch. 94-353, § 62, at 2567, Laws of Fla. This legislation, which is codified in section 193.155, Florida Statutes (1995), gives the property appraiser authority to rectify an annual assessment that was based on “a material mistake of fact”:
193.155 Homestead assessments.— Homestead property shall be assessed at just value as of January 1,1994. Property receiving the homestead exemption after January 1, 1994, shall be assessed at just value as of January 1 of the year in which the property receives the exemption. Thereafter, determination of the assessed value of the property is subject to the following provisions:
(8) Erroneous assessments of homestead property assessed under this section may be corrected in the following manner:
(a) If errors are made in arriving at any annual assessment under this section due to a material mistake of fact concerning an essential characteristic of the property, the assessment must be recalculated for every such year. § 193.155, Fla. Stat. (1995). In the present cases, the property appraisers assert that section 193.155(8)(a) bestows upon them the authority to reach back and correct an erroneous calculation of the base year “just value” assessment and then apply that corrected value to subsequent years. We disagree.
Section 193.155(8)(a) on its face is inapplicable to the base year assessment set forth in article VII, section 4, Florida Constitution. The statute by its plain language refers to errors in the “annual assessment” (i.e., the value that is ascribed to a homestead each year after the “just value” has been determined in the base year), not errors in the base year “just value” assessment. Nowhere in section 193.155(8)(a) is the base year “just value” assessment even mentioned. By its plain wording, section 193.155(8)(a) thus bestows no authority on a property appraiser to make a retroactive change in the base year assessment.
Accordingly, we hold that Smith and Mas-troianni lack authority under section 193.155(8)(a) to retroactively change the base year “just value” assessment of the Smith and Boone properties. We affirm the results in Smith and Borne, but for the reasons stated herein and not those stated in the district court’s opinion in Smith.
It is so ordered.
HARDING, C.J., SHAW, WELLS and PARIENTE, JJ„ and OVERTON and KOGAN, Senior Justices, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Smith v. Krosschell, 937 So. 2d 658 (Fla. 2006)…ded that Smith had no statutory authority on these facts to make a retroactive change in the base year assessment of Krosschell’s homestead. See Krosschell, 892 So. 2d at 1146. In support of its holding, the district court relied on Smith v. Welton, 729 So. 2d 371 (Fla.1999), in which this Court held that on the facts presented there section 193.155(8)(a) of the Florida Statutes did not provide property appraisers the authority to make a retroactive change in the base year assessment of homesteaded property.…
-
Robbins v. Kornfield, 834 So. 2d 955 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)…y appraiser seeking to set aside the back assessment placed on their residence. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the taxpayers and held that both the Florida Constitution and the Florida Supreme Court decision in Smith v. Welton, 729 So. 2d 371 (Fla.1999), prohibited the property appraiser from reassessing the property’s just value. This appeal followed. Section 193.155, Florida Statutes (2001), permits a property appraiser to correct erroneous assessments of homestead property. However,…
-
Smith v. Krosschell, 892 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)…Krossc-hell claimed that the fifty-eight percent increase in the year 2001 over the year 2000 assessment was in violation of Article VII, Section 4, of the Florida Constitution. We conclude that the trial court correctly relied on Smith v. Welton, 729 So. 2d 371 (Fla.1999), in finding that the Property Appraiser had no statutory authority to make a retroactive change in the assessment of Krossehell’s property. In Smith, 729 So. 2d at 373, the court held: “By its plain wording, section 193.155(8)(a) thus bes…
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
- Timothy "Pete" Smith v. Welton, 710 So. 2d 135 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)
- Boone v. Ernie Mastroianni, 709 So. 2d 192 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)
- Neville Roy Lawrence v. Lourine Reynolds Lawrence, 709 So. 2d 192 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)