CHARLES HENRY, APPELLANT,
v.
COUNTY OF DADE ET AL., AND CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, 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 affirmed the dismissal of a property owner's tax assessment challenge, holding that the suit was filed outside the statutory 60-day limit, which the court deemed a jurisdictional defect.
No, the trial court did not err. The 60-day period provided in § 192.21 is a jurisdictional requirement, and failure to comply deprives the court of subject matter jurisdiction, allowing for dismissal on motion.
“this suit having been instituted after the expiration of the sixty day period provided in § 192.21, Florida Statutes, this Court is without jurisdiction over its subject matter and it is therefore hereby dismissed with prejudice.”
This quote explains the trial court's basis for dismissing the case.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Charles Henry challenged his 1961 property tax assessments by Dade County and the City of Miami Beach, alleging they were unreasonable, uneq…
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 Tax Assessment Validity cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant’s complaint, charging that the real and personal property tax assessments of Dade County and the City of Miami Beach made against his property for 1961 were “unreasonable, unequitable, unconscionable and confiscatory and in violation of law”, was dismissed on motion of the defendants. The ground stated in the order was that “ * * * this suit having been instituted after the expiration of the sixty day period provided in § 192.21, Florida Statutes,1 this Court is without jurisdiction *90over its subject matter and it is therefore hereby dismissed with prejudice.”
Appellant argues that this statute being one of limitation, it must be pleaded by answer; and, therefore, the court erred when it acted upon motion. The point is not well taken because under the wording of the statute, compliance is necessary for the court to have jurisdiction. Cf., Town of Miami Springs v. Lasseter, Fla.1952, 60 So. 2d 774.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Miller v. Nolte, 453 So. 2d 397 (Fla. 1984)…er than a statute of limitations. Rudisill v. City of Tampa, 151 Fla. 284, 9 So. 2d 380 (1942); Chatlos v. Overstreet, 124 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1960). The Third District Court of Appeal has consistently followed our interpretation. Henry v. County of Dade, 149 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 155 So. 2d 549 (Fla. 1963); Harvey W. Seeds Post No. 29 v. Dade County, 230 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 238 So. 2d 420 (Fla. 1970); Chaves Construction Co. v. Metropolitan Dade County, 256 So. 2d 545 (Fla. 3d…
-
Harvey W. Seeds Post NO. 29 v. Dade Cnty., 230 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)…arly more than sixty days from the 2nd day in October, 1967, when the assessment complained of became final. Such failure to file within the limitations period is fatal to the plaintiff’s case under the holding in Henry v. Dade County (1963, App. 3) 149 So. 2d 89. “3. The plaintiff failed to appear before the Board of County Commissioners of Dade County, Florida, sitting as a Board of Equalization, and assert any right to tax exempt status for 1967. The plaintiff is therefore barred from the relief it seeks…
-
COE v. ITT Cmty. Dev. Corp., 362 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 1978)…er than a statute of limitations. Rudisill v. City of Tampa, 151 Fla. 284, 9 So. 2d 380 (1942); Chatlos v. Overstreet, 124 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1960). The Third District Court of Appeal has consistently followed our interpretation. Henry v. County of Dade, 149 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 155 So. 2d 549 (Fla.1963); Harvey W. Seeds Post No. 29 v. Dade County, 230 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 238 So. 2d 420 (Fla.1970); Chaves Construction Co. v. Metropolitan Dade County, 256 So. 2d 545 (Fla. 3d D…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Town of Miami Springs v. Lasseter, 60 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 1952)