FLORIDA INDUSTRIAL CO.
v.
STATE, FOR ITS OWN USE AND FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT OF LAFAYETTE COUNTY
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 overruling a motion to dismiss a bill of complaint seeking to foreclose tax sale certificates. The court found that while no personal deficiency decree could be entered against the landowner, a decree could be entered to enforce the tax lien.
The court held that while no personal deficiency decree is allowable against the landowner in a tax foreclosure case, a decree can be entered to enforce the tax lien, requiring payment of taxes, interest, penalties, and costs, with foreclosure and title conveyance upon default.
“Of course, no personal decree can be entered against the landowner in such case; that is, no deficiency decree is allowable, although a decree may be entered requiring the payment of taxes, interest penalties and costs, in default of payment of which the lien therefor will be foreclosed and the title conveyed to another.”
Explains the court's holding regarding personal decrees in tax foreclosure cases.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFlorida Industrial Co. filed a bill of complaint to foreclose tax sale certificates. The company challenged the validity of certain provisions of Chap…
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 appeal here is from an order overruling a motion to dismiss bill of complaint filed' to foreclose certain tax sale certificates.
By motion to dismiss, the validity of certain provisions of Chapter 14572, Acts of 1929, are challenged. The manner of procedure employed and the pr.ayer for a personal decree are also challenged.
Of course, no personal decree can be entered against the landowner in such case; that is, no deficiency decree is allowable, although a decree may be entered requiring the payment of taxes, interest penalties and costs, in default of *2payment of which the lien therefor will be foreclosed and the title conveyed to another.
Other questions presented have been determined by this Court adversely to appellant’s contentions in the case of Beebe v. State, for the use of the State, et al., opinion filed November 28th, 1933, and reported 151 So. 298.
The order appealed from should, therefore, be affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
Ellis and Brown, J. J., not participating.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Katharine Mitchell Jackson LEE v. Corydon W. Carpenter, 132 So. 2d 433 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961)…aser takes a valid and unimpeachable title. * * * ” This is especially true in Florida where ad valorem taxes are a charge against the land itself and not against the owners of the various estates therein. See Florida Industrial Co. v. State, 1934, 114 Fla. 1, 152 So. 717, and Jacksonville Expressway Authority v. Milford, Fla.App.1959, 115 So. 2d 778. The majority rule, where the law does not provide for separate taxation of mineral rights or estates, is fully exemplified by decisions from Oklahoma, Iowa…
Authorities Cited
- Beebe v. State, 113 Fla. 28 (Fla. 1933)