FULTON SAUSSY, ET AL., AS TRUSTEES, ETC., ET AL.,
v.
NORTHERN INVESTMENT CORPORATION
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 a foreclosure decree allowing a tax certificate holder to foreclose on delinquent state and county tax certificates for the years 1930-1932 without first paying 1933 taxes or other subsequently accrued taxes, resolving whether Chapter 14572 of the 1929 Florida Acts modified prior law regarding tax certificate foreclosure requirements.
A tax certificate holder filing suit in 1934 to foreclose state tax certificates for 1930, 1931, and 1932 was not required to pay 1933 taxes or other taxes not yet certified as delinquent as a condition precedent to the foreclosure suit. Chapter 14572, Acts of 1929 eliminated the requirement that all subsequently due taxes be paid before redemption or purchase of a tax certificate, modifying the harsh rule previously established. Subsequently accrued taxes are not affected by the foreclosure sale but remain as a lien on the property.
“One of the purposes of Sections' 10 and 11 of Chapter 14572, Acts of 1929, was to modify the previous harsh rule referred to in Rosenhouse v. Holly, 100 Fla. 1394, 131 Sou. Rep. 389, so as to favor the taxpayer by giving him the most ample period of time permissible under the law for redemption of his property from current tax liabilities”
Establishes the legislative intent behind the 1929 statute to protect taxpayers by eliminating stringent requirements
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFulton Saussy and others, as trustees, filed suit on February 7, 1934 to foreclose three delinquent tax certificates on the Everett Hotel property in …
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.
Complainant below was allowed to foreclose three delinquent tax certificates" on the Everett Hotel property situate in the City of Jacksonville, the certificates foreclosed representing general State and county taxes unpaid for the years 1930, 1931 and 1932. The suit was filed February 7, 1934. The final decree was entered on January 4, 1935.
■ Some of the questions argued by appellants in their briefs have no foundation for their consideration laid in the record of what was presented to and ruled on by the court below.' Practically all of the other questions have heretofore been decided adversely to appellants’ contentions in the following cases: Florida Land Holding Corp. v. Lee, 118 Fla. 107, *266159 Sou. Rep. 7; Lee v. Walter-Keogh Co., 105 Fla. 199, 141 Sou. Rep. 131; Price v. Gray, 111 Fla. 1, 149 Sou. Rep. 804; Wade v. City of Jacksonville, 113 Fla. 718, 152 Sou. Rep. 197; Tax Securities Corp. v. Security Inv. Corp., 115 Fla. 536, 155 Sou. Rep. 752; City of Sanford v. Dial, 104 Fla. 1, 142 Sou. Rep. 233; Security Land & Inv. Co. v. Ranger Realty Co., 115 Fla. 640, 156 Sou. Rep. 23; Rosenhouse v. Holly, 100 Fla. 1394, 131 Sou. Rep. 389; (decided before enactment of Chapter 14572, Acts 1929); Ridgeway v. Reese, 100 Fla. 1304, 131 Sou. Rep. 136; Ranger Realty Co. v. Hefty, 112 Fla. 654, 152 Sou. Rep. 439; City of Bradenton v. Lee, 120 Fla. 100, 162 Sou. Rep. 139; Campbell v. Pine Holding Co., 119 Fla. 793, 161 Sou. Rep. 726.
The complainant having filed its' suit in February, 1934, to foreclose State tax certificates for 1930, 1931 and 1932 State and county taxes, was not required by Chapter 14572, Acts 1929, Laws of Florida, to pay 1933 taxes, or any other taxes not at that time actually certified as delinquent, as a condition precedent to the maintenance of his foreclosure suit.
One of the purposes of Sections' 10 and 11 of Chapter 14572, Acts of 1929, was to modify the previous harsh rule referred to in Rosenhouse v. Holly, 100 Fla. 1394, 131 Sou. Rep. 389, so as to favor the taxpayer by giving him the most ample period of time permissible under the law for redemption of his property from current tax liabilities and accordingly Sections' 992 and 994, Compiled General Laws, 1927 (Section 775 R. G. S.) were so amended as to eliminate any requirement on the part of a taxpayer that “all taxes that became due the following November” shall be paid for a redemption or purchase of a tax certificate. The court below properly recognized the change by entering his decree in conformity to it.
*267Where tax certificates are foreclosed and property sold under the foreclosure decree to satisfy the certificates upon which it was rendered, subsequently accrued taxes are not affected by the foreclosure, as the foreclosure sale will convey the title subject to the lien of any subsequent omitted unpaid taxes that may accrue thereon, either pendente lite or after the decree.
The decree appealed from is without reversible error and should be affirmed.
Whitfield, C. J., and Brown and Davis, J. J., concur.
Ellis, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Drawdy v. Leonard, 145 Fla. 562 (Fla. 1940)…old at. the date of institution of suit. Appellant challenges plaintiff’s right to do so. That this may be done and in fact should be done, under conditions shown here, is well established in Suassy v. Northern Investment Corporation, 165 Sou. 268, 122 Fla. 265; City of Bradenton v. Lee, 162 Sou. 139, 120 Fla. 100; Northern Investment Corporation v. Mutual Realty Co., 174 Sou. 849, 128 Fla. 374. The only other question presented by appellant is: “May lessee in possession under agreement to pay taxes upon…
-
S. Pine Co. of Ga. v. Murphy Inv. Co., 126 Fla. 531 (Fla. 1936)…Sou. Rep. 136; Ridgeway v. Peacock, 100 Fla. 1297, 131 Sou. Rep. 140; Stubbs v. Florida State Finance Co., 118 Fla. 450, 159 Sou. Rep. 527; Securities Land & Inv. Co. v. Ranger Realty Co., 115 Fla. 640, 156 Sou. Rep. 23; Saussy v. Northern Inv. Co., 122 Fla. 265, 165 Sou. Rep. 268; Tax Securities Corp. v. Manatee Corp., 115 Fla. 655, 155 Sou. Rep. 742; West Virginia Hotel Corp. v. Foster Co., 101 Fla. 1147, 132 Sou. Rep. 842; Washbish v. Elvines, 114 Fla. 575, 154 Sou. 315; Wade v. City of Jacksonville, 113…
-
McCord v. D. Lee & the City of Tampa, 127 Fla. 65 (Fla. 1937)…Sou. Rep. 136; Ridgeway v. Peacock, 100 Fla. 1297, 131 Sou. Rep. 140; Stubbs v. Florida State Finance Co., 118 Fla. 450, 159 Sou. Rep. 527; Securities Land & Inv. Co. v. Ranger Realty Co., 115 Fla. 640, 156 Sou. Rep. 23; Saussy v. Northern Inv. Co., 122 Fla. 265, 165 Sou. Rep. 268; Tax Securities Corp. v. Manatee Corp., 115 Fla. 655, 155 Sou. Rep. 742; West Virginia Hotel Corp. v. Foster Co., 101 Fla. 1147, 132 Sou. Rep. 842; Washbish v. Elvins, 114 Fla. 575, 154 Sou. Rep. 315; Wade v. City of Jacksonville,…
Authorities Cited (14 total)
- City of Sanford v. Dial, 104 Fla. 1 (Fla. 1932)
- Ranger Realty Co. v. Caspar Hefty, 112 Fla. 654 (Fla. 1933)
- Townsend Burns Ridgeway v. Reese, 100 Fla. 1304 (Fla. 1930)
- Britt v. State, 100 Fla. 1387 (Fla. 1930)
- City of Bradenton v. D. Lee. 4 Cases: Nos. 4281, 120 Fla. 100 (Fla. 1935)
- Moore v. Allen, 115 Fla. 187 (Fla. 1934)
- Wade v. City of Jacksonville, 113 Fla. 718 (Fla. 1934)
- Sec. Land & Inv. Co. v. Ranger Realty Co., 115 Fla. 640 (Fla. 1934)
- Fla. Land Holding Corp. v. Lee, 118 Fla. 107 (Fla. 1934)
- Brooks v. State, 115 Fla. 243 (Fla. 1934)