FIRST TRUST CO. OF SARASOTA
v.
PAUL M. SOUDER
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 affirmed an order striking paragraphs from an answer in a tax certificate foreclosure case. The court held that defenses challenging assessment validity are generally not permitted in such proceedings under Chapter 14572, Acts of 1929, unless the assessment method disproportionately burdened the objector.
No, such defenses are generally not permissible unless the alleged assessment method resulted in a substantially greater proportionate burden on the objector compared to others, due to an intentional disregard of the law.
“No attack on the validity of an assessment roll, especially when launched several years after the irregularities complained of were committed, will be entertained in defense of proceedings brought under Section 1, Chapter 14572, Acts of 1929, to foreclose a tax certificate issued after the effective date of that Act, where it does not appear from the allegations of the pleading that the alleged method of assessment affected the objecting party other than other tax payers' similarly situated, so as to place upon the objector a substantially greater proportionate burden than upon others, as a result of an intentional disregard of the law in the system or method used in making the assessments complained of.”
This quote explains the general rule and the exception for when defenses challenging assessment validity are permitted in tax foreclosure proceedings.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThis case involves a foreclosure action on a tax certificate issued in August 1931. The defendant filed an answer that included paragraphs challenging…
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.
The order in this case striking certain paragraphs of an answer in equity interposed as a defense to a bill brought to foreclose a tax certificate issued August 28, 1931, should be affirmed on the authority of Lee v. Booker & Co., 108 Fla. 534, 146 Sou. Rep. 546; West Virginia Hotel Co. v. Foster Co., 101 Fla. 1147, 132 Sou. Rep. 842, and the provisions of Chapter 14572, Acts of 1929, applicable to defenses permissible in proceedings brought to foreclose tax certificates issued after Chapter 14572, Acts of 1929, became effective.
No attack on the validity of an assessment roll, especially when launched several years after the irregularities complained of were committed, will be entertained in defense of proceedings brought under Section 1, Chapter 14572, Acts of 1929, to foreclose a tax certificate issued after the effective date of that Act, where it does not appear from the allegations of the pleading that the alleged method of assessment affected the objecting party other than other tax payers' similarly situated, so as to place upon the objector a substantially greater proportionate burden than upon others, as a result of an intentional disregard of the law in the system or method used in making the assessments complained of. Lee v. Booker & Co., Inc., 108 Fla. 534, 146 Sou. Rep. 546, and cases cited.
*395Affirmed.
. Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Terrell, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hackney v. McKenny, 113 Fla. 176 (Fla. 1933)…sary to efficient government for the protection of the personal and property rights of all. Ranger Realty Co. v. Hefty, 112 Fla. 654, 152 Sou. Rep. 439 (opinion filed November 13, 1933, at the present term) ; First Trust Co. v. Souder, 112 Fla. 393, 150 Sou. Rep. 590 (opinion filed October 18, 1933). “The law contemplates that a wide discretion be accorded to the tax assessor in the valuation of property for the purpose of taxation. In the absence of a clear and positive showing of fraud or of an illegal act or…
-
Hart v. Held, 149 Fla. 33 (Fla. 1941)…without stating in the order upon what ground the motion was granted the appellate court will assume it was granted upon the ground stated in the motion which justified the order. See G. Lloyd Preacher & Co. v. Sarasota Bay Hotel Co., 112 Fla. 432, 150 South. Rep. 590. The doctrine also obtains in this State that there is a presumption of correctness in favor of an order by the trial court granting a new trial, but where the evidence requires the finding to be made which was made and a judgment upon such finding…
-
Beckwith v. Bailey, 119 Fla. 316 (Fla. 1935)…arms Co., 95 Fla. 90, 116 Sou. Rep. 23; Luria v. Bank of Coral Gables, 106 Fla. 175, 142 Sou. Rep. 901, 143 Sou. Rep. 598; Scott v. National City Bank of Tampa, 107 Fla. 818, 146 Sou. Rep. 573; Preacher & Co. v. Sarasota Bay Hotel Co., 112 Fla. 432, 150 Sou. Rep. 590. The presumption on appeal is that the order granting a new trial was properly made. See: Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Wade, 49 Fla. 179, 36 Sou. Rep. 49; Dunnellon Phosphate Co. v. Crystal River Lumber Co., 63 Fla. 131, 58 Sou. Rep. 786; Cheyney v. R…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- W. Va. Hotel Corp. v. W. C. Foster Co., 132 So. 842 (Fla. 1931)
- Lee v. Booker & Co., Inc., 108 Fla. 534 (Fla. 1933)