HUNGERFORD CONVALESCENT HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION, A CORPORATION NOT FOR PROFIT, PETITIONER,
v.
FRANK K. OSBORN, AS TAX ASSESSOR OF DUVAL COUNTY, CLYDE SIMPSON, AS TAX COLLECTOR OF DUVAL COUNTY, S. M. SLAUGHTER, AS CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF DUVAL COUNTY, RAY E. GREEN, AS COMPTROLLER OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENTS
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 reversed a dismissal of a charitable hospital's complaint for tax exemption, holding that a nonprofit hospital's charitable status is not forfeited merely because it realizes a profit from operations, provided those profits are devoted to charitable purposes as required by statute.
A nonprofit hospital's charitable tax exemption status is not forfeited by the realization of profit from operations where such funds are devoted to the charitable purposes of the institution. The complaint adequately alleged facts establishing charitable use and compliance with statutory restrictions on use of funds, and therefore stated a valid claim for exemption.
“realization of a profit from hospital operations will not forfeit charitable status where such funds are devoted to the charitable purposes of the institution”
Establishes the core legal principle that profit alone does not defeat charitable status if profits are used charitably
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHungerford Convalescent Hospital Association, a nonprofit corporation, sought a declaration of tax exemption under Florida law as a charitable institu…
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 Failure To State A Cause Of Action cases and more on FLexlaw
Writ of certiorari has issued in this case to review a decision affirming a final decree which dismissed petitioner’s complaint seeking a declaration of tax exemption as a charitable corporation under F.S. Sec. 192.06 F.S.A.1 The alleged con*231flict is with Orange County v. Orlando Osteopathic Hospital, Fla.1953, 66 So.2d 285, and Miami Battlecreek v. Lummus, 140 Fla. 718, 192 So. 211.
The facts involved are fully and fairly stated in the opinion of the district court.2 Predicated upon a recitation that half of the patients paid more than the actual cost involved in their maintenance and the overall average monthly income per patient slightly exceeded the per patient cost, the court concluded that the petitioner hospital “has failed to allege facts from which an inference could he fairly drawn that its funds are devoted exclusively to benevolent and charitable purposes.” Petitioner’s contention, with which we agree, is that this decision, upon the facts set forth in the complaint and opinion, conflicts with the clear holding of the cases above cited that realization of a profit from hospital operations will not forfeit charitable status where such funds are devoted to the charitable purposes of the institution.
Allegations of the complaint in the trial court, quoted in the opinion in this case are that the hospital charter requires that all charges made for services and facilities over and above actual expenses shall be used in the care and treatment of persons unable to pay therefor; that the plaintiff hospital “has * * * used [the subject property] for the purposes for which Plaintiff was so organized * * * and the rents, issues and profits of said property have been used for the benevolent and charitable purposes of said institution. * * * The Plaintiff has no requirements for admission other than the need of such services and the availability of a bed for such patient. Plaintiff undertakes to charge each patient so received on the basis of ability to pay and particular care needed.”
The complaint adequately states a claim for exemption under the statute. It contains, as above recited, allegations of facts showing a substantial charitable use and an avowed compliance with stated restrictions on use of funds consistent only with exclusive charitable use. Under these circumstances, whatever profit may be indicated by mathematical computation of receipts and disbursements, the principle of the cited cases requires that the complaint be sustained. The District Court’s opinion sustaining the action of the trial court in holding the complaint failed to state a cause of action is, therefore, in direct conflict with the Orange County and Battlecreek cases, supra. Accordingly, the judgment is quashed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.
It is so ordered.
ROBERTS, C. J., and THORNAL, O’CONNELL and CALDWELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jasper v. Mease Manor, Inc., 208 So. 2d 821 (Fla. 1968)…f. Miller v. Doss, FIa.1950, 46 So. 2d 888. . Lummus v. Florida Adirondack School, note 4, supra. . Presbyterian Homes, of Synod of Fla., Inc. v. City of Bradenton, Fla.1966, 190 So. 2d 771; Hungerford Convalescent Hosp. Assn. v. Osborn, Fla.1963, 150 So. 2d 230; Haines v. St. Petersburg Methodist Home, Inc., Fla.App.1965, 173 So. 2d 176, and earlier cases there cited. . Cf. Porter v. Baynard, 1946, 158 Fla. 294, 28 So. 2d 890, 894, 170 A.L.R. 747, [*826] and State v. City of Tallahassee, 1940, 142 Fla. 47…
-
Mac S. Haines v. ST. Petersburg Methodist Home, Inc., 173 So. 2d 176 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)…he plaintiff, finding inter alia that: “This case is controlled by the principles set forth in the decisions of the Supreme Court of Florida in Miami Battlecreek v. Lummus [140 Fla. 718], 192 So. 211, and Hungerford Convalescent Hospital v. Osborn, 150 So. 2d 230. These cases interpret and construe Section 1, Article 9 of the Florida Constitution and Section 192.06 (3) Florida Statutes, which exempt charitable institutions from taxation. “That no factual situation identical with the instant case has been pr…1 / 2
-
Presbyterian Homes OF the Synod OF Fla., Inc. v. City OF Bradenton, 190 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 1966)…HOMAS, DREW, O’CONNELL and CALDWELL, JJ., concur. ROBERTS, J., dissents with opinion. ERVIN, J., dissents with opinion. THORNAL, C. J., dissents and agrees with ROBERTS and ERVIN, JJ. . Compare, Hungerford Convalescent Hospital Ass’n v. Osborn, 150 So. 2d 230 (Fla.1963); Miami Battle Creek v. Lummus, 140 Fla. 718, 192 So. 211 (1939), with Haines v. St. Petersburg Methodist Home, Inc., 173 So. 2d 176 (Fla.App.2d) cert. denied, Fla., 183 So. 2d 211 (1965).…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- The Miami Battlecreek v. Lummus, 140 Fla. 718 (Fla. 1939)
- Orange Cnty. v. Orlando Osteopathic Hosp., Inc., 66 So. 2d 285 (Fla. 1953)
- Hungerford Convalescent Hosp. Ass'n v. Osborn, 138 So. 2d 786 (Fla. 1st DCA 1962)