JOHN R. ROBARDS, ET AL.,
v.
CITY OF EUSTIS
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.
This case involves a petition for rehearing concerning the assessment of taxes and street improvement liens on four lots. The court modified its previous opinion to clarify how these liens should be apportioned among the lots to allow for equitable redemption.
Yes, the decree should be modified to apportion the total ad valorem taxes, costs, and attorney's fees to each lot based on its proportion of the total area, and then add the individual special assessment lien for each lot. This allows for equitable redemption.
“It appearing that all four of said lots were assessed for State, County and City taxes together as a unit, and assessed for street improvement liens singly and separately, the decree of the court below, unless it should be made to appear to the Chancellor that it cannot equitably be done should be modified so as to adjudicate the amount of the tax and assessment lien, and proportion of costs and attorney’s fees, due on each of said lots, by apportioning to each of said lots its due share of the total of ad valorem taxes or tax liens found to be due on all four of said lots, as well as its due share of the total costs and attorney’s fees allowed in the decree, the same to be apportioned to each lot in proportion to area (which, if each of said lots is the same size, - would mean one-fourth of said total should be apportioned to each lot), and there should then be added to such apportionment to each lot the amount of the special assessment lien found by the court to be resting on each such lot; so that any of the party or parties defendant to this cause who are equitably entitled to redeem any one or more of said lots may-have an opportunity to do so before foreclosure sale, within such time as the court may designate, by paying the [*275] amount so apportioned to each such lot or lots so redeemed.”
This quote details the specific modification to the decree, outlining the method for apportioning taxes, costs, and assessments to allow for individual lot redemption.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFour lots were assessed for taxes as a unit but for street improvement liens individually. The original decree did not clearly apportion the total tax…
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 Redemption Of Property cases and more on FLexlaw
On Petition for Rehearing.
On petition for rehearing the third and fourth sentences of our previous opinion are ordered stricken therefrom and the last three sentences 'of said opinion and judgment heretofore rendered herein by this Court on September 23, 1936, are hereby modified and changed so as to read as follows: “It appearing that all four of said lots were assessed for State, County and City taxes together as a unit, and assessed for street improvement liens singly and separately, the decree of the court below, unless it should be made to appear to the Chancellor that it cannot equitably be done should be modified so as to adjudicate the amount of the tax and assessment lien, and proportion of costs and attorney’s fees, due on each of said lots, by apportioning to each of said lots its due share of the total of ad valorem taxes or tax liens found to be due on all four of said lots, as well as its due share of the total costs and attorney’s fees allowed in the decree, the same to be apportioned to each lot in proportion to area (which, if each of said lots is the same size, - would mean one-fourth of said total should be apportioned to each lot), and there should then be added to such apportionment to each lot the amount of the special assessment lien found by the court to be resting on each such lot; so that any of the party or parties defendant to this cause who are equitably entitled to redeem any one or more of said lots may-have an opportunity to do so before foreclosure sale, within such time as the court may designate, by paying the *275amount so apportioned to each such lot or lots so redeemed. The cases of Green Cove Farms, Inc., v. Ivey, 119 Fla. 561, 161 So. 56, and State v. Culbreath, 118 Fla. 6, 160 So. 3, while not directly in point, are persuasive in this connection. When so modified, the'decree appealed from shall stand affirmed.
“Reversed and remanded with directions for modification of final decree.”
Having made the foregoing change in and amplification of our former opinion and judgment in this case, the petition for rehearing will be denied.
It is so ordered.
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
Authorities Cited
- Green Cove Farms, Inc. v. Ivey, 119 Fla. 561 (Fla. 1934)
- State v. Chas. E. Culbreath, 118 Fla. 6 (Fla. 1934)
- Robards v. City of Eustis, 125 Fla. 740 (Fla. 1936)