WILLIAM DELUCCIO, STEPHEN B. MILLER, TERRI NOYES, CLARENCE L. SPANNUTH, JR., M.D. AND KAREN E. SPANNUTH, HUSBAND AND WIFE, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS REPRESENTATIVES OF SIMILARLY SITUATED PERSONS, APPELLANTS/CROSS-APPELLEES,
v.
ED HAVILL, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS PROPERTY APPRAISER OF LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA; BOB MCKEE, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS TAX COLLECTOR OF LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA; LAKE COUNTY, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA; THE LAKE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD; CITY OF GROVELAND, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA; MARCUS SAIZ DE LA MORA, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS PROPERTY APPRAISER OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA; FERNANDO CASAMAYOR, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS TAX COLLECTOR OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA; MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA; THE MIAMI-DADE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD; CITY OF MIAMI, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA; CHARLES HACKNEY, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS PROPERTY APPRAISER OF MANATEE COUNTY, FLORIDA; KEN BURTON, JR., IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS TAX COLLECTOR OF MANATEE COUNTY, FLORIDA; MANATEE COUNTY, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA; THE MANATEE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD; CITY OF LONGBOAT KEY, POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA; KENNETH WILKINSON, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS PROPERTY APPRAISER OF LEE COUNTY, FLORIDA; CATHY CURTIS, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS TAX COLLECTOR OF LEE COUNTY, FLORIDA; LEE COUNTY, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA; THE LEE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD; CITY OF CAPE CORAL, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA; LISA ECHEVERRI, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE; AND ALL NAMED DEFENDANTS, INDIVIDUALLY AS ENTITIES OR PERSONS ACTING IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITIES AND AS ENTITIES OR PERSONS ACTING IN THEIR OFFICE CAPACITIES, APPELLEES/CROSS-APPELLANTS
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Dormant Commerce Clause cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellants, out-of-state residents owning residential property in Florida, appeal a final judgment dismissing their amended complaint with prejudice. Appellants argue that the Save Our Homes Amendment, which placed a cap on the amount the assessed value of Florida homestead property could be increased annually, and Amendment 1, which was adopted by popular referendum in 2008 and which, among other things, made a portion of an existing homestead exemption portable to newly-purchased homestead property, violated their rights under the Privileges and Immunities Clause and the dormant Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. As the trial court rightly determined, we have previously rejected these arguments. See Bruner v. Hartsfield, 23 So.3d 192 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009); Lanning v. Pilcher, 16 So.3d 294 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009); Reinish v. Clark, 765 So.2d 197 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). As such, we affirm the final judgment. We reject the argument on cross-appeal without comment.
AFFIRMED.
WEBSTER, DAVIS, and VAN NORTWICK, JJ, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Reinish v. Clark, 765 So. 2d 197 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)
- Lanning v. Pilcher, 16 So. 3d 294 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)
- Rice v. State, 23 So. 3d 192 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)
- Bruner v. Hartsfield, 23 So. 3d 192 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)