GAMMA PHI CHAPTER OF SIGMA CHI BUILDING CORPORATION
v.
DADE COUNTY, ET AL.
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.
A non-profit fraternity corporation sought tax exemption for its property but filed the application after the statutory deadline. The court held that Florida's tax exemption statute imposing an April 1 filing deadline is mandatory, not directory, and therefore the late application was properly denied.
The court held that §192.062's April 1 filing deadline is mandatory, not directory, and therefore a late application for tax exemption must be denied. The statute's failure to explicitly define the consequences of late filing does not render it void for vagueness, and the plaintiff's claim is barred by laches after receiving two warning notices.
“The plaintiff's argument that §192.062 does not define the consequences of failure to make timely application and should therefore be disregarded as vague and indefinite is not acceptable to the court. To so hold would be to declare the statute a nullity and of no force and effect, and this court will not so rule.”
Establishes that ambiguity regarding statutory consequences does not invalidate a statute; the court will not strike down a law merely because it does not explicitly define penalties for non-compliance.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGamma Phi Chapter of Sigma Chi Building Corporation owned a fraternity house in Coral Gables that had previously been exempt from ad valorem taxation.…
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 Mandatory Statutes cases and more on FLexlaw
Final decree: This cause came on to be heard on motions for summary final decree sought by both parties. The court, having reviewed the complaint, the answer, the affidavit of C. A. Morehead with exhibits 1 and 2 attached thereto, the deposition of Rue Gewert, and the two memorandum briefs submitted by opposing counsel, and having heard extensive argument by counsel, makes the following findings of fact —
The plaintiff non-profit corporation owns and has owned for some years past a fraternity house at 6100 San Amaro Drive in Coral Gables.
Following the enactment of §192.062, Florida Statutes, during the 1963 legislative session, the defendant tax assessor began a systematic program of reminding those persons whose property had been previously exempt from ad valorem tax by virtue of §16, article 16 of the constitution of Florida and chapter 192, Florida Statutes, to file an application for exemption on or before April 1 of the particular tax year for which exemption was sought.
At the beginning of January, 1965 the defendant assessor sent the plaintiff fraternity a reminder notice informing it that §192.062 was then in effect, and that applications for exemption from 1965 tax must be submitted on or before April 1, 1965.
Not having received a response from the plaintiff, the defendant assessor sent the plaintiff fraternity a further reminder notice on or about March 1, 1965.
The plaintiff fraternity filed its application for exemption from county ad valorem tax on June 7, 1965. The assessor denied the application for exemption on the ground that it had not been timely filed, and the plaintiff fraternity instituted this suit.
Based on these facts, it is ordered, adjudged and decreed as follows —
The defendants’ motion for summary final decree is granted.
The plaintiff’s argument that §192.062 does not define the consequences of failure to make timely application and should therefore be disregarded as vague and indefinite is not acceptable to the court. To so hold would be to declare the statute a nullity and of no force and effect, and this court will not so rule.
The plaintiff’s prayer for relief should be barred by laches after it received two notices from the assessor reminding it to present its application on or before April 1, 1965, and still failed to do so.
The provisions of §192.062 appear to the court to be mandatory, rather than merely directory as urged by the plaintiff.