N. B. HAYS
v.
CITY OF TAMPA, 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.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of a complaint challenging the City of Tampa's reduction of special street assessments under legislative authorization. The court held that the Legislature has authority to modify assessments and authorize refunds without violating constitutional law, provided no vested rights are infringed.
The Legislature has constitutional authority to determine the amount of special assessments, authorize refunds of public improvement costs, and validate tax levies to fund those refunds, provided no vested rights are infringed. The complainant failed to allege facts showing he had acquired a vested interest adversely affected by the statute and ordinance, thus having no legal ground for complaint.
“The amount of a special assessment is a matter to be determined by the Legislature or its authority.”
Establishes the Legislature's foundational authority over special assessments
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe City of Tampa paved certain streets and assessed the entire cost against abutting property under Chapter 9298 (1923). In 1931, the Legislature ena…
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 Special Assessments cases and more on FLexlaw
— The City of Tampa paved certain streets under the provisions of Chapter 9298, Acts of 1923, assessing the entire cost of the improvement against abutting property.
*623Chapter 15536 was enacted by the Legislature of 1931 which provided-in part:
“That the City of Tampa in Hillsborough County, Florida, be and it is hereby authorized and empowered by resolution or ordinance of its governing body to reduce the Special Assessments now held by and due to said City, heretofore levied or assessed upon property in said City, under and by virtue of or in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 9298, Laws of Florida, 1923, or Chapter 11232, Laws of Florida, 1925, known as the 'Tampa-Local Improvement Act,’ or subsequent amendments thereto, whenever such assessments so levied or assessed were for the entire cost of the improvements, to the extent of one-third (l/3rd) of the original principal amount of such assessments, and one-third (l/3rd) of the accrued interest thereon, such reduction to be made and credit given therefor as herein provided.”
The Act then provides the manner in which the purpose above set forth shall be effectuated and accomplished.
On December 8, 1931, the governing authority of the City of Tampa enacted Ordinance No. 462A pursuant to authority conferred by Chapter 15536, supra, and thereby reduced each of the original assessments to the extent' of one-third and authorized a refund of an amount equal to one-third of the original assessment to each of those owners who had paid the original assessment in whole or in part. A tax levy of one mill on the dollar on all real and personal property from year to year is authorized and provided for the purpose of refunding the amounts authorized to be refunded to lot owners.
Suit was filed to enjoin the execution of Ordinance No. 462A.
On motion the bill of complaint was dismissed and complainant appealed.
*624The amount of a special assessment is a matter to be determined by the Legislature or its authority. Klemm v. Davenport, 100 Fla. 627, 129 Sou. 904.
The refunding of moneys paid for public improvements may be authorized by the Legislature without offending organic law. Carlton, Governor, et al., v. Matthews, 103 Fla. 301, 137 Sou. 815.
It is elementary that the Legislature may validate a tax levy which it may have authorized and that the Legislature may relieve against an inequitable and unjust tax levy if vested rights are not infringed thereby.
The complainant did not allege facts to show that he had acquired any vested interest which would be adversely affected by the compliance with the statute or ordinance complained of and, therefore, is without legal ground for complaint. City of Sebring, et al., v. Wolf, et al., 105 Fla. 516. 141 Sou. 736; McMullin v. Johnson, 102 Fla. 19, 135 Sou. 716; State, ex rel. Johnson v. Sarasota, 92 Fla. 563, 109 Sou. 473.
The bill of complaint was clearly without equity and, therefore, the decree should be affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Affirmed.
Whitfield, P. J., and Brown, J., concur.
Davis, C. J., and Ellis and Terrell, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gen. Dev. Corp. v. Kirk, 251 So. 2d 284 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971)…mi, Fla.1951, 56 So. 2d 924 (disputed election to be held simultaneously with city primary election at slight additional cost already incurred when injunction sought). . Shad v. DeWitt, 1946, 158 Fla. 27, 27 So. 2d 517; Hays v. City of Tampa, 1934, 114 Fla. 622, 154 So. 687. . For a general view of the question of standing, see Davis, The Liberalized Law of Standing, 1970, 37 U.Clii.L.Rev. 450; Standing for Review of Actions by Federal Administrative Agencies: A New Test, [*287] 1970, 23 U.Fla.L.Rev. 206;…
Authorities Cited
- Klemm v. Davenport, 100 Fla. 627 (Fla. 1930)
- State v. City of Sarasota, 92 Fla. 563 (Fla. 1926)
- Doyle E. Carlton v. Mathews, 103 Fla. 301 (Fla. 1931)
- State v. Johnson, 102 Fla. 19 (Fla. 1931)
- City of Sebring v. Wolf, 105 Fla. 516 (Fla. 1932)