M. M. ROBERTS, ET UX.,
v.
CALVERT LAND COMPANY
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 final decree of foreclosure of a tax lien, holding that a property owner cannot challenge the validity of a tax certificate based on excessive valuation when they failed to return the land for taxation or take steps to force a reduction in valuation.
No, a property owner cannot challenge the validity of a tax certificate based on excessive valuation if they failed to return the land for taxation and did not take steps to force a reduction in valuation.
“The record shows that the lands involved were not returned for taxation by the owner; that the owner deliberately stopped paying taxes on the said land because he considered the assessment too high, although he had for several years prior, without making any record of complaint, paid the taxes based on the identical valuation and took no steps to force a reduction in valuation.”
This quote details the key facts regarding the owner's actions and inactions concerning the tax assessment and payment.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe lands involved in this foreclosure action were not returned for taxation by the owner. The owner deliberately stopped paying taxes, believing the …
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 Lien Foreclosure cases and more on FLexlaw
— The appeal before us' brings for review final decree of foreclosure of tax lien under the provisions of Chapter 14572, Acts of 1929.
The record shows that the lands involved were not returned for taxation by the owner; that the owner deliberately stopped paying taxes on the said land because he considered the assessment too high, although he had for several years prior, without making any record of complaint, paid the taxes based on the identical valuation and took no steps to force a reduction in valuation.
The defense was that the tax certificate was invalid because of excessive valuation of the lands for tax assessments.
The decree should be affirmed on authority of Ridgeway v. Reese, 100 Fla. 1304, 131 Sou. 136; Tax Securities Corp. v. Borland, 103 Fla. 63, 137 Sou. 151, and Tax Securities Corp. v. Manatee County, 115 Fla. 655, 155 Sou. 742.
It is so ordered.
Affirmed.
Ellis, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
Whitfield, C. J., and Brown and Davis, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Tax Sec. Corp. v. Peggie Borland, 103 Fla. 63 (Fla. 1931)
- Townsend Burns Ridgeway v. Reese, 100 Fla. 1304 (Fla. 1930)
- Britt v. State, 100 Fla. 1387 (Fla. 1930)
- Mrs. Louise Smith v. Floyd, 115 Fla. 535 (Fla. 1934)
- Tax Sec. Corp. v. Manatee Co., 115 Fla. 655 (Fla. 1934)