W. WIRT CULBERTSON, AS TAX ASSESSOR FOR METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
SEACOAST TOWERS EAST, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEE
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.
Seacoast Towers East challenged its ad valorem tax assessment, arguing that improvements under construction were not substantially completed on the January 1, 1967 assessment date and therefore should be taxed as unimproved land under Florida statute. The Florida Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the statute and affirmed the denial of the tax assessor's motion for summary judgment.
The statute does not violate the Florida Constitution. It constitutes only a temporary postponement of valuation and assessment that bears a reasonable relationship to the legislative power to regulate property valuation, and the term 'substantially completed' is not unconstitutionally ambiguous.
“All taxable lands upon which active construction of improvements is in progress and upon which such improvements are not substantially completed on January 1, of any year shall be assessed for such year, as unimproved lands.”
The statutory provision at issue that allows postponement of assessment for incomplete improvements on the January 1 assessment date.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSeacoast Towers East, a hotel corporation, contested its tax assessment for the 1967 tax year. The property had active construction in progress on Jan…
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.
The plaintiff hotel corporation in this case instituted a chancery suit contesting its tax assessment as illegal on the ground that the improvements included in the valuation were not substantially complete on January 1, 1967, under F.S. Sec. 193.11(4), F.S.A. providing:
“All taxable lands upon which active construction of improvements is in progress and upon which such improvements are not substantially completed on January 1, of any year shall be assessed for such year, as unimproved lands. Provided, however, the provisions hereof shall not apply in cases of alteration or improvement of existing structures.”
The defendant taxing authorities filed an answer and motion for summary judgment, contending that the statute on which plaintiff relied was unconstitutional and that the complaint, lacking a direct averment that the assessment exceeded market value, failed to present any material issue.
Defendants have filed this interlocutory appeal from the order denying their motion for summary judgment, invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article V, Sec. 4, Fla.Const, F.S.A. and F.A.R. 2.1, subd. a(5) (a), 32 F.S.A., to review an interlocutory order which sustains the validity of a statute against attack on constitutional grounds. On the record presented, at least preliminary disposition of the jurisdictional point is implicit in the decision that the complaint, founded on the controverted statute, does present material triable issues.1
The constitutional arguments urged by appellants are that Sec. 193.11(4) grants an exemption from ad valorem taxation in violation of Article IX, Sec. 1, of the Florida Constitution, and that it fails to define or prescribe standards for the administrative application of the terms “substantially completed,” in violation of Article III, Sec. 1, Fla.Const. Neither contention, in our opinion, has merit.
The statute constitutes only a temporary postponement of valuation and assessment of incomplete improvements on real property provided the prescribed conditions are met on the annual assessment date. The requirement is simply that the separate classification of such property shall bear some reasonable relationship to the legislative power to prescribe regulations to secure a just evaluation of property. Factors analogous to those here involved have in numerous instances been made the basis for special statutory treatment.2
We find no direct authority for the contention that the terminology of the statute is fatally ambiguous, and are not persuaded by appellants’ arguments in this respect.3 The remaining issues raised by ap-pellee, with reference to matters not yet determined by the trial court, have no pertinence in this appeal.
The order appealed is accordingly affirmed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.
CALDWELL, C. J., and THOMAS, ROBERTS, THORNAL, ERVIN and ADAMS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sunset Harbour Condo. Ass'n v. Robbins, 914 So. 2d 925 (Fla. 2005)…regardless of whether the structures are substantially completed. He argues that section 192.042(1) creates an unconstitutional fifth exception to the just valuation requirement in article VII, section 4. In Culbertson v. Seacoast Towers East, Inc., 212 So. 2d 646 (Fla.1968), we rejected the claim that the predecessor substantially complete statute constituted an exception to the “just valuation”4 requirement. We recognized that the statute did not create an exception to the constitutional requirement that pr…1 / 3
-
Fuchs v. Robbins, 738 So. 2d 338 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…eted on January 1 of any year shall be assessed for such year, as unimproved lands. Provided, however, the provisions hereof shall not apply in cases of alteration or improvement of existing structures.” In Culbertson v. Seacoast Towers East, Inc., 212 So. 2d 646 (Fla.1968), the validity of this statute was challenged in relation to the tax assessment valuation on January 1, 1967 of an incomplete apartment building. The Dade County Circuit Court concluded that section 193.11(4), which required the tax assess…1 / 3
-
Sherwood Park, Ltd., Inc. v. Meeks, 234 So. 2d 702 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970)…d, however, the provisions hereof shall not apply in cases of alteration or improvement of existing structures.” The Supreme Court of Florida has heretofore held that statute to be constitutional. Culbertson v. Seacoast Towers East, Inc., Fla.1968, 212 So. 2d 646. The statute does not set forth any criteria determining what is “substantially completed.” A very good determination of substantially completed is to be found in State ex rel. Stites v. Goodman, Mo. 1961, 351 S.W. 2d 763, 766. It was well said ther…
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
- Bowery v. Searles Babbit, 99 Fla. 1151 (Fla. 1930)
- L. Maxcy, Inc. v. Fed. Land Bank of Columbia, 111 Fla. 116 (Fla. 1933)
- Cramp v. Bd. OF Pub. Instruction OF Orange Cnty., 118 So. 2d 541 (Fla. 1960)
- Webster v. 759 Riverside Ave., Inc., 113 Fla. 8 (Fla. 1933)
- Jasper v. William C. McLEAN & Sons, Inc., 195 So. 2d 240 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)