J. W. CARLILE
v.
MELBOURNE-TILLMAN DRAINAGE DIST. ET AL.
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 addresses whether land acquired by the State under the Murphy Act is subject to pre-existing delinquent drainage district taxes. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a lower court ruling that the drainage district taxes remained a lien on the property.
Yes, the State of Florida took title to the land under the Murphy Act subject to and burdened with the drainage district taxes that were delinquent prior to the vesting of title in the State.
“Did title to land subject to Drainage District go over to the State subject to and burdened with drainage district taxes?”
This quote states the central legal question before the court.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe State of Florida acquired title to land under the Murphy Act. Prior to this acquisition, drainage district taxes on the land were delinquent. 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.
The only question involved in this appeal is, “Did title to land subject to Murphy Act in Drainage District go over to the State subject to and burdened with drainage district taxes?”
*356Stated otherwise, the question is: Did the State of Florida take title to lands under the provisions of the Murphy Act free and clear of the lien created by the levy and assessment of drainage district taxes delinquent prior to title vesting in the State?
The Circuit Court in effect held that the delinquent drainage tax remained a lien against the property on which the same was levied.
The decree is affirmed on authority of the opinion and judgment of this Court in the case of Bice v. City of Haines City, filed May 17, 1940.
So ordered.
Terrell, C. J., Whitfield, Brown, Buford, Chapman and Thomas, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jackson v. City OF Lake Worth, 156 Fla. 452 (Fla. 1945)…City of Lake Worth. It appears that the law applicable to this matter has been determined adversely to the contention of the appellants in Bice v. Haynes City, 142 Fla. 371, 195 Sou. 919, and Carlile v. Melbourne-Tillman Drainage District, et al., 143 Fla. 355, 196 Sou. 687. See also Prince Hall Masonic Bldg. v. City of Jacksonville 149 Fla. 109, 6 So. (2nd) 250. It must be borne in mind that the title claimed by appellants did not result from a foreclosure suit in which the [*455] State’s lien for taxes…
-
Trs. of Internal Improvement Fund of Fla. v. Sw. Tampa Storm Sewer Drainage Dist., 142 F.2d 637 (5th Cir. 1944)…gal title under the Murphy Act. See opinion on rehearing, 6 So. 2d 255. Therefore, the State had no tax liens on the lands which it acquired under the Murphy Act. That Court also held, in Carlile v. Melbourne-Tillman Drainage District, 143 Fla. 355, 196 So. 687, that the title to land in a drainage district acquired under the Murphy Act went to the State, subject to, and burdened with, the lien of drainage district taxes, citing as authority Bice v. Haines City, 142 Fla. 371, 195 So. 919. See also Baldwin…