W. B. IVEY, ET UX.,
v.
JOHN T. HUNTER
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 an order denying the defendant's motion to dismiss a bill of complaint to foreclose tax certificates. The court held that when a taxpayer acquires tax certificates under a valid statute, the Legislature cannot retroactively divest them of the rights acquired, even if that statute is later repealed.
The court held that when a complainant acquires tax certificates under a valid statute, the Legislature cannot retroactively repeal that statute to divest him of the valuable rights acquired. Chapter 17442 was not effective as to tax certificates acquired between June 20, 1929, and May 21, 1935. Additionally, the court held that the circuit court acquired jurisdiction because the defendants submitted to jurisdiction by filing a general appearance.
“When complainant purchased the involved tax certificates on February 6, 1935, he became vested with the rights and privileges, then accorded him under the provisions of Chapter 14752, Acts of 1929, and the Legislature was without power to divest him of the valuable rights thus acquired.”
Establishes the holding that vested property rights acquired under a valid statute cannot be retroactively divested by legislative repeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceComplainant W. B. Ivey purchased state and county tax certificates issued in August 1933 and transferred to him on February 6, 1935. On April 16, 1935…
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 Statutory Repeal cases and more on FLexlaw
On this appeal we review an order denying motion to dismiss bill of complaint filed April 16, 1935, under the provisions of Chapter 14752, Acts of 1929, to foreclose certain State and County tax certificates issued in August, 1933, and transferred and assigned to complainant on the 6th day of February, 1935.
The brief of appellants does not comply with amended Rule 20, but, as only questions involving elementary principles are presented, we shall dispose of the case on the record.
Appellant contends that the bill.may not be maintained because the salient parts of Chapter 14752, Acts of 1929, were repealed by Chapter 17442, Acts of 1935, which became effective May 21, 1935, before service of process on the defendants. There is no merit in the contention. When complainant purchased the involved tax certificates on February 6, 1935, he became vested with the rights and privileges, then accorded him under the provisions of Chapter 14752, Acts of 1929, afid the Legislature was without power to divest him of the valuable rights thus acquired. Therefore; Chapter 17442, Acts of 1935, repealing certain sections of' Chapter 14572, Acts of 1929, was not effective as to tax sale certificates on tax deeds acquired by individuals between June 20th, 1929, and May 21st, 1935.
The provisions of Chapter 14572, supra, have been held valid by this Court in the cases of Ridgeway v. Reese, 100 Fla. 1304, 131 Sou. 136; Tax Securities Corp. v. Borland, 103 Fla. 63, 137 Sou. 151; First Trust & Savings Bank v. West Lake Investment Co., 105 Fla. 590, 141 Sou. 894, and Beebe v. State, 113 Fla. 28, 161 Sou. 298.
*229Appellant contends that the Circuit Court did not ad1 quire jurisdiction of the defendants becáuse of lack of service of necessary process. It is unnecessary to discuss the sufficiency of the process either as issued or as served, because the record shows that defendants submitted to-.’the jurisdiction of the court by filing a general appearance therein.
So the order appealed from is affirmed.
Whitfield, C. J., and Terrell and Davis, J. J., concur.
Ei.lis, P. J., and Brown, J., dissent.
(dissenting). — The Legislature may change or modify the procedure for the enforcement of a contract right, provided some effective remedy is left. This may be done without impairing the obligation of the contract, pror vided the remedy which is left is effective. A party does-not have a vested right in a mere matter of procedure, unless it be his only effective remedy. Here the parties were not brought into Court until Chapter 14572 had been repealed. And the repealing Act only shows the procedure of the prior Act in so far as suits then pending were concerned. See Cragin v. Ocean & Lake Realty Co., 101 Fla. 1337, 135 So. 795.
Brown, J.
(dissenting). — The Legislature may change or modify the procedure for the enforcement of a contract right, provided some effective remedy is left. This may be done without impairing the obligation of the contract, pror vided the remedy which is left is effective. A party does-not have a vested right in a mere matter of procedure, unless it be his only effective remedy. Here the parties were not brought into Court until Chapter 14572 had been repealed. And the repealing Act only shows the procedure of the prior Act in so far as suits then pending were concerned. See Cragin v. Ocean & Lake Realty Co., 101 Fla. 1337, 135 So. 795.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Glenn v. Leland, 129 Fla. 429 (Fla. 1937)…hapter 14572 were repealed by Chapter 17442, Acts of 1935. This repeal, however, did not deprive .the court of chancery of jurisdiction to adjudicate tax liens. This case is to be distinguished from that of Ivey, et ux., v. Hunter, 126 Fla. 137 and 126 Fla. 227 (170 Sou. 619 and 170 Sou. 734. In that case tax certificates had been purchased by the individual prior to the repealing Act hereinabove referred to and as to those certificates acquired at that time the Legislature was held to be without power to…1 / 2
-
Hammond v. Sandstrom, 376 So. 2d 466 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…Fla. 3d DCA 1962). . This relief is of course granted without prejudice to any further and appropriate proceedings in the Dade County Circuit Court. Avery v. Sinclair, 153 Fla. 767, 15 So. 2d 846 (1943); State ex rel. Trezevant v. McLeod, supra, at 170 So. 734. . The court expresses its appreciation to the firm of Sinclair, Louis, Siegel and Heath which, at our request, appeared as amicus curiae and ably presented argument on behalf of the petitioner.…
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)
- First Tr. & Sav. Bank v. W. Lake Inv. Co., 105 Fla. 590 (Fla. 1932)
- Beebe v. State, 113 Fla. 28 (Fla. 1933)