SERVICE METRO CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
MATT LANGLEY BELL, AS TAX COLLECTOR OF ESCAMBIA COUNTY, FLORIDA; CHRIS JONES, AS PROPERTY APPRAISER OF ESCAMBIA COUNTY, FLORIDA; AND THE STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, 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 appellate court affirmed the trial court's ruling that the appellant is the equitable owner of the property, thus not qualifying for the tax exemption.
Appellant Service Metro Corporation sought an ad valorem property tax exemption for property leased and used by a government agency. The trial court f…
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 Equitable Ownership cases and more on FLexlaw
POLSTON, J.
Appellant Service Metro Corporation seeks an exemption from ad valorem property tax assessments pursuant to section 196.199, Florida Statutes, for various tax years. To qualify for the exemption, the property must be owned and used by a governmental entity for governmental or public purposes. Because the property is leased and occupied by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (“HRS”), now known as the Department of Children and Families, it is undisputed that the property is being used for a governmental purpose. The issue is who owns the property. Service Metro argues that Escambia County and HRS own the property.
After a two-day bench trial, the circuit court ruled, with extensive analysis, that the property is not exempt because Service Metro is the true owner of the property. We agree that Service Metro has sufficient rights and duties regarding the property to make it the equitable owner. See Leon County Educational Facilities Authority v. Hartsfield, 698 So. 2d 526 (Fla.1997); First Union National Bank of Florida v. Ford, 636 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993). Accordingly, we affirm.
However, we do not reach the circuit court’s ruling that Escambia County’s acceptance of bare legal title was an unconstitutional accommodation by the County to aid a private corporation in violation of Article VII, § 10, of the Florida Constitution. Singletary v. State, 322 So. 2d 551, 552 (Fla.1975)(courts should avoid reaching a constitutional issue in a case when the decision can be made on other grounds).
AFFIRMED.
ALLEN and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lewis Y. and Betty T. Ward v. Brown, 919 So. 2d 462 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)…perty taxes pursuant to section 196.199, Florida Statutes (2001). Because we agree with the trial court that appellants have sufficient rights and duties regarding the property to make them equitable owners, we affirm. See Serv. Metro Corp. v. Bell, 786 So. 2d 1216, 1217 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); Leon County Educ. Facilities Auth. v. Hartsfield, 698 So. 2d 526, 529 (Fla.1997) (stating that “equitable ownership should be applied evenhandedly regardless of whether a tax is being imposed or an exemption is being claim…
Authorities Cited
- Nadene Singletary v. State, 322 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 1975)
- Leon Cnty. Educ. Facilities Auth. v. Hartsfield, 698 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 1997)
- First Union Nat'l Bank OF Fla. & Brevard Cnty. v. Ford, 636 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)