KENNETH WILKINSON, AS PROPERTY APPRAISER, AND LISA ECHEVERRI, N/K/A LISA VICKERS, AS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, APPELLANTS,
v.
SUSANNE L. CLARKE, AS TRUSTEE OF THE FRANCIS HINE LOW FAMILY TRUST DATED MAY 23, 1995, AND CATHY CURTIS, AS TAX COLLECTOR, 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 Florida District Court of Appeal reversed a trial court's summary judgment in favor of a property trust in a tax assessment contest because the court lacked jurisdiction. The appellants challenged the trial court's authority to enter judgment after the taxpayer failed to pay property taxes by the statutory deadline, which Florida law makes a jurisdictional requirement.
The trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter the summary judgment because Florida Statutes section 194.171 divests courts of jurisdiction when a taxpayer fails to pay taxes timely, and a nunc pro tunc order cannot cure this jurisdictional defect. Once the Trustee's taxes became delinquent on April 1, 2011, the trial court's June 20, 2011 order granting summary judgment was a nullity.
[1] A court loses jurisdiction over a tax assessment contest action when the taxpayer fails to pay subsequent taxes before they become delinquent.
[2] Failure to pay taxes by the delinquency deadline divests the trial court of subject matter jurisdiction in a tax assessment contest.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“No action to contest a tax assessment may be maintained, and any such action shall be dismissed, unless all taxes on the property assessed in years after the action is brought, which the taxpayer in good faith admits to be owing, are paid before they become delinquent.”
Establishes the statutory requirement under section 194.171(5) that taxpayers must keep subsequent-year taxes current to maintain an assessment contest action.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn May 2010, the Trustee of the Francis Hine Low Family Trust sued to challenge the 2009 ad valorem assessment of real property. The Trustee filed a m…
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 Jurisdictional Requirement cases and more on FLexlaw
The Lee County Property Appraiser and Florida Department of Revenue appeal an order granting final summary judgment in favor of the Francis Hine Low Family Trust. Because the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter the order, we reverse.
In May 2010 the Trustee of the Francis Hine Low Family Trust sued the Lee County Property Appraiser, the Lee County Tax Collector, and the Florida Department of Revenue, alleging that the 2009 ad valorem assessment of a piece of real property belonging to the Trust was invalid. The Trustee filed a motion for summary judgment which was argued at a hearing on March 21, 2011. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court reserved ruling.
The trial court communicated its decision to the parties in a letter filed April 4, 2011. The letter indicated that the trial court agreed with the Trustee’s analysis and purported to grant its motion for summary judgment. On April 7, 2011, the Property Appraiser filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. *898The motion alleged that the Trustee failed to pay its 2010 real property taxes by the April 1, 2011, deadline and, consequently, the trial court lost jurisdiction over the case pursuant to section 194.171, Florida Statutes (2010).
At the hearing on the motion to dismiss on June 6, 2011, the Trustee did not dispute that it failed to pay its taxes by the deadline. Instead, the Trustee asserted that because it submitted and argued its motion for summary judgment prior to the tax deadline, the trial court’s election to reserve ruling until after the deadline should not prejudice the Trustee. Thus, the Trustee argued, the appropriate resolution was to enter an order nunc pro tunc, effective as of a date prior to the tax deadline.
On June 20, 2011, the trial court issued an order granting the Trustee’s motion for summary judgment “entered Nunc Pro Tunc effective as of March 21, 2011[,] prior to the alleged delinquency of April 1.” On the same day, the trial court also issued an order denying the Appraiser’s motion to dismiss as moot in light of the court’s ruling on the motion for summary judgment. The Property Appraiser and Department of -Revenue timely filed this appeal.
Section 194.171(5) provides in full: “No action to contest a tax assessment may be maintained, and any such action shall be dismissed, unless all taxes on the property assessed in years after the action is brought, which the taxpayer in good faith admits to be owing, are paid before they become delinquent.” Subsection (6) explains that this requirement is jurisdictional and specifies that “A court shall lose jurisdiction of a case when the taxpayer has failed to comply with the requirements of subsection (5).” Florida law is thus “clear that jurisdiction to entertain an assessment contest is conditioned on the taxpayer’s obligation to keep taxes current for all years subsequent to the year in question.” Higgs v. Armada Key West Ltd. P’ship, 903 So.2d 303, 305 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005). Therefore, once taxes become delinquent, dismissal is required pursuant to section 194.171. Washington Square Corp. v. Wright, 687 So.2d 1374, 1375 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997).
Here, it is undisputed that the Trustee failed to timely pay its 2010 taxes on the real property at issue in this suit. Once the Trustee’s taxes became delinquent on April 1, 2011, section 194.171 divested the trial court of jurisdiction to hear the case. Therefore, the trial court’s June 20, 2011, order granting final summary judgment in favor of the Trustee was entered without jurisdiction and is a nullity. See Napoleonic Soc. of Am., Inc. v. Snibbe, 696 So.2d 1243, 1243 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (“Because the final summary judgment was entered without jurisdiction, it is a nullity.”). This jurisdictional defect could not be cured by the entry of the order nunc pro tunc. See D.M. v. State, 580 So.2d 634, 635-36 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (reversing a nunc pro tunc order entered after the court’s jurisdiction lapsed because such an order “exceeds the scope of the proper purposes for which a nunc pro tunc order can be issued”).
Although this result is “somewhat harsh,” Bystrom v. Diaz, 514 So.2d 1072, 1074 (Fla.1987), we must reverse the order granting summary judgment in favor of the Trustee and remand the case for dismissal.
Reversed.
WHATLEY and KELLY, JJ„ Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dep't OF Revenue v. Syndi Vanamburg and Alejandro Jesus Ramirez, 174 So. 3d 640 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)…e Paternity and Support Order. See 14302 Marina San Pablo Place SPE, LLC v. VCP-San Pablo, Ltd., 92 So. 3d 320, 320 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (quashing the order on appeal where the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter the order); Wilkinson v. Clarke, 91 So. 3d 897, 898 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (holding that the judgment was entered without jurisdiction and was, therefore, a nullity). ORDERS QUASHED. LEWIS and MAKAR, JJ., concur; WETHERELL, J., concurs with opinion. . Effective January 1, 2015, rule 9.020(i)(3) w…
-
Forest Brooke/Hillsborough, LLC v. Henriquez, 194 So. 3d 1091 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)…ORTHCUTT and BLACK, JJ., Concur. . The Property Appraiser made no argument that Forest Brooke failed to. comply with the time requirements for filing a complaint under subsections (2) and (3). . The Property Appraiser cites to Wilkinson v. Clarke, 91 So. 3d 897 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012), in which this court reversed a summary judgment entered in favor of the taxpayer, concluding that the trial court lost jurisdiction, over the 2010 complaint challenging a 2009 assessment because the taxpayer had not timely paid i…
-
Sowell v. Faith Christian Fam. Church Of Panama, 249 So. 3d 1323 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)…uccessive years’ taxes.” Bystrom v. Diaz, 514 So. 2d 1072, 1074 (Fla. 1987) (quoting Marshall v. Perkins, 494 So. 2d 506, 507 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)); see also Washington Square Corp. v. Wright, 687 So. 2d 1374 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); Wilkinson v. Clarke, 91 So. 3d 897 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012); Nikolits, 92 So. 3d at 299; Higgs, 903 So. 2d at 305. As the Florida Supreme Court has observed: Although subsections 194.171(5) and (6) appear to be somewhat harsh, their meaning is clear. Subsection 194.171(5) plainly states…
Authorities Cited
- Bystrom v. Diaz, 514 So. 2d 1072 (Fla. 1987)
- The Napoleonic Soc'y OF Am., Inc. v. Snibbe, 696 So. 2d 1243 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- Wash. Square Corp. v. Wright, 687 So. 2d 1374 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)
- D.M. v. State, 580 So. 2d 634 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Cone v. State, 903 So. 2d 303 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)
- Hadley v. State, 903 So. 2d 303 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)