WALTER H. FREEZE, APPELLANT,
v.
COUNTY OF PINELLAS, STATE OF FLORIDA., A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION, MAC S. HAINES AS PINELLAS COUNTY TAX ASSESSOR, AVERY W GILKERSON, AS COUNTY CLERK, AND HUNNICUTT AND ASSOCIATES, INC., 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 court held that a contract for professional property appraisal services did not unlawfully delegate the tax assessor's constitutional duty and that the statute authorizing such contracts was valid.
A taxpayer challenged a county's contract with an appraisal company to appraise all taxable real property, arguing it violated constitutional provisio…
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.
Appeal has been taken from a final summary decree of the Circuit Court for Pinellas County 1 directly passing upon and sustaining the validity of Section 193.111, Florida Statutes, F.S.A.
The statute provides in part: “The boards of county commissioners of each of the several counties of the state, be, and they are hereby authorized and empowered to cause to be made by a company or board of appraisers to be selected by the board of county commissioners, an appraisement of all property in such county. * * * The original of said appraisement shall be deposited with the tax assessor of such county and a duplicate thereof shall be deposited in the office of the board of county commissioners.” The appellee County, by contract pursuant to this statute, obtained the services of the Hunnicutt corporation, upon specified terms, to appraise all taxable real property within the county boundaries for the information, guidance and use of the county tax assessor in preparing the Pinellas County tax roll. Bill for injunction against performance of the contract was subsequently filed by the appellant taxpayer upon several grounds, including that of constitutional transgression hereinafter detailed.
In the resulting decree the court found, upon the pleadings, affidavits and depositions filed in the cause, that the contract was a valid obligation of the parties and did not conflict with Section 193.112 or 193.111, Florida Statutes, nor with Chapter 26464, Laws of Florida, Extraordinary Session of 1949, which authorized and controlled a reassessment at that time of taxable property within Pinellas County. The court also found that Section 193.111, supra, does not *99constitute an unlawful delegation of any of the powers and authority of the county, the County Tax Assessor, or the County Clerk to the Hunnicutt corporation in contravention of Article VIII, Section 20, or other provision of the Florida Constitution.
We conclude that the decree must be affirmed. The requirement of Article VIII, Section 20 is that the Pinellas County Tax Assessor “shall assess all property for all * * * taxes to be levied in the county” by state and local authorities. The provisions of Section 193.111, and the more specific terms of the contract here involved, do not contravene directly or indirectly the constitutional mandate.
The contract required, in substance, the submission of evaluations together with substantiating data,3 representation at meetings for purposes of explanation and technical assistance, and conduct of a limited program of public information and understanding. We find no authority which would condemn the rendition of such services to public officials charged with the performance of governmental functions.4 In the exercise of all governmental power it is obviously the ultimate judgment or decision which an officer is required to make personally.5 The statute, pleadings and exhibits 6 involved in this cause are conclusive that such power has not been surrendered or removed from the assessor in favor of either the corporate appraisers or supervising county officials nor could it be. In State ex rel. Glynn v. McNayr 7 we specifically held that such appraisals “[were] not binding on the tax assessor although it could properly be used by him as a guide.”
Nor is there merit to the contention that Chapter 26464, supra, prevents Pinellas County’s utilization of the subsequent general law, which on its face has a statewide application. The special act is not in terms exclusive or inconsistent with Sec. 193.111 and cannot therefore serve as the basis for application of the rule of statutory construc*100tion under which special laws take precedence over general provisions on identical subject matter.
The remaining points urged by appellant have been fully considered and resolved in favor of the adjudication below.
Affirmed.
ROBERTS, C. J., and TERRELL, THOMAS, THORNAL, O’CONNELL and CALDWELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Osborn v. Mrs. E. B. Yeager, 155 So. 2d 742 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)…Charlotte County had employed Hunnicutt and Associates, an appraisal firm, to re-appraise property for the year 1961, but this fact is no deterrent to the actual valid assessment made by the tax assessor. See Freeze v. County of Pinellas, Fla.1962, 146 So. 2d 97. He used the advice of Hunnicutt, but the actual figures on assessment, whether they agreed with Hunnicutt or not, were his own. There is testimony in the record that shows conclusively that he did not rely upon Hun-nicutt in arriving at his figures…
-
Schuler v. Walter, 24 Fla. Supp. 116 (Duval Cty. Cir. Ct. 1965)…an appraisal firm are not binding on the assessor but are advisory to him and may be used as a guide but it still remains his duty to make the final determination. (State v. McNayr, Fla. 1961, 133 So. 2d 312, Freeze v. County of Pinellas, Fla. 1962, 146 So. 2d 97). The court is of the opinion that it does not have the power to direct the assessor or the county commissioners as to which method should be pursued. The court conceives its duty to require the assessor to comply with the constitutional mandate, l…
-
Segal v. Tax Assessor, 30 Fla. Supp. 32 (Dade Cty. Cir. Ct. 1968)…constitution places the duty of tax assessment valuation on the tax assessors of the state. This duty cannot be delegated. Walter v. Schuler, 176 So. 2d 81 (Fla., 1965); State v. McNayr, 133 So. 2d 312 (Fla., 1961); and Freeze v. County of Pinellas, 146 So. 2d 97 (Fla., 1962). §193.271 allows a property owner to set the valuation of his property for tax assessment purposes. This valuation is affirmed if, at a forced sale, in a doubtful market, the property is placed [*36] on the auction block and no bids ar…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hoyt v. Florida, 368 U.S. 57 (U.S. 1961)
- State of Fla. ex rel. Jay G. Glynn & Betty Glynn v. McNAYR, 133 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 1961)
- Hoyt v. State, 119 So. 2d 691 (Fla. 1959)