MYRLYN L. ALLEN AND MARGARET E. DEATON, PETITIONERS,
v.
FRED O. DICKINSON, JR., AS COMPTROLLER OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, ET AL., RESPONDENTS
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 court held that the tax assessor's alterations to property valuation and assessment were not ministerial or administrative and thus not correctable under Section 192.21, Florida Statutes.
Petitioners sought to invalidate an increase in their real property's valuation and assessment after the tax roll was certified. The trial court grant…
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 Assessment Valuation cases and more on FLexlaw
We are requested to review a decision of the District Court of Appeal, Second District,1 reversing and remanding a Summary Judgment granted in favor of Petitioner taxpayers which declared invalid an increase in valuation and assessment of Petitioner’s real property after equalization and certification of the tax roll by the County Commission.
We have jurisdiction 2 by virtue of conflict with the decisions in Dade County v. Budd3, and Homer v. Connecticut General Life Ins. Co.4
The facts appear in the opinion below and will not be restated here. Respondents characterize the Tax Assessor’s action as acts of omission or commission subject to correction by the assessor under Section 192.21, Florida Statutes 1967, F.S.A. The same argument was made in Dade County v. Budd upon similar facts. In that case the District Court of Appeal, Third District, upheld the trial court’s findings that the assessment change was not brought within the narrow limits of Section 192.21. That decision, wliich we approve, requires reversal in the instant case. The alterations here attempted by the Tax Assessor were not of the purely ministerial or administrative type subject to correction under Section 192.21. They involved much more.
The trial court in its Summary Judgment enjoined Respondents from taxing Petitioners on the “assessments herein declared illegal.” Petitioners’ Complaint and the Summary Judgment were directed solely to the 1966 valuation and assessment. The injunction does not affect valuations *311and assessments for years subsequent to 1966.
The decision of the District Court is quashed and the cause remanded with instructions to reinstate the Summary Judgment in favor of Petitioners herein.
It is so ordered.
ROBERTS, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.
ERVIN, C. J., dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Korash v. Mills, 263 So. 2d 579 (Fla. 1972)…, 183 So. 2d 567 (Fla.App.4th 1966); Markham v. Friedland, 245 So. 2d 645 (Bla.App.4th 1971); Homer v. Connecticut General Life Ins. Co., 211 So. 2d 250 (Fla.App.3d 1988); Dade County v. Budd, 219 So. 2d 63 (Fla.App.3d 1969); and Allen v. Dickinson, 223 So. 2d 310 (Fla.1969) (fact stated in 2d Dist. Opinion at 215 So. 2d 747, 749 (1968)). . Allen v. Dickinson, 223 So.2cl 310 (Fla.1969). . See footnote 1. (This analysis thus distinguishes the author’s seemingly contrary holding as a chancellor in Btidd— ther…
-
Markham v. Friedland, 245 So. 2d 645 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)…y clear that the Certificate of Correction issued by the present Tax Assessor was not an alteration of the purely ministerial or administrative type subject to correction under Florida Statutes, Section 192.21 [F.S.A.]. Allen v. Dickinson, Fla.1969, 223 So. 2d 310; Homer v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company, Fla.App.1968, 211 So. 2d 250; writ discharged [Fla.] 220 So. 2d 361; Dade County v. Budd, Fla.App.1969, 219 So. 2d 63. “The previous Tax Assessor, in fixing the valuation on the subject property…1 / 2
-
Smith v. Krosschell, 937 So. 2d 658 (Fla. 2006)…concluded that a computer error that omitted a zero in the property owner’s tax bill was correctable under a statutory predecessor to section 197.122(1). See Straughn v. Thompson, 354 So. 2d 948, 949 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); see also Allen v. Dickinson, 223 So. 2d 310, 310 (Fla.1969) (holding that acts of omission or commission of “the purely ministerial or administrative type” are correctable under a statutory predecessor to section 197.122(1)); McNeil Barcelona Assocs., Ltd. v. Daniel, 486 So. 2d 628, 629 (Fla.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Porter W. Homer v. Conn. Gen. Life Ins. Co., 211 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Dade Cnty. v. Budd, 219 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)
- Dickinson v. Myrlyn L. Allen and Margaret E. Deaton, 215 So. 2d 747 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)
- Porter W. Homer v. Conn. Gen. Life Ins. Co., 220 So. 2d 361 (Fla. 1969)