STATE EX REL. CLINTON BURBRIDGE, ET AL.,
v.
ALBERT H. ST JOHN, AS ASSESSOR OF TAXES
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 clarified its prior judgment reversing a tax assessment decision, holding that while the Housing Authority of Jacksonville's property was not shown to be tax-exempt under the current pleadings, this does not preclude the property owner from later demonstrating exemption under the state constitution's charitable purposes provision.
The Court held that under the pleadings presented, the property was not shown to be exempt from taxation, so the assessor must assess it unless the owner can demonstrate to the assessor that it qualifies for exemption as property held exclusively for religious, scientific, municipal, educational, literary, or charitable purposes. The Court clarified that its judgment does not preclude the property owner from exercising its legal right to show exemption in the future.
“It has not been held by this Court that the property involved is subject to taxation. Nor has it been held by the majority of the Court that it is exempt from taxation under the provisions of Section 16, Article XVI, of the Constitution.”
Establishes that the Court's prior judgment made no determination on the ultimate taxability question.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe case involves property belonging to the Housing Authority of Jacksonville, Florida, and a dispute over whether it should be assessed for taxation.…
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 Property Tax Exemption cases and more on FLexlaw
It áppears that there is confusion as to the rationale of the action of this Court in the entry of its judgment of June 28, 1940.
The judgment of the court below was reversed and the cause remanded for further appropriate procedure.
It has not been held by this Court that the property involved is subject to taxation. Nor has it been held by the majority of the Court that it is exempt from taxation under the provisions of Section 16, Article XVI, of the Constitution. The majority of the Court does hold that under the pleadings in this case, the property is not shown to be exempt under that organic provision.
It does not necessarily follow that property belonging to the Housing Authority of Jacksonville, Florida, may be exempt from taxation; nor does it follow that property owned by the Housing Authority of Jacksonville, Florida, is not exempt from taxation.
Under the provisions of Section 16, Article XVI, of the Constitution, if it be shown that any specific property belonging to the Housing Authority of Jacksonville, Florida, be held and used exclusively for religious, scientific, municipal, educational, literary or charitable purposes, or for any one or more of such purposes, then that property is exempt from taxation, and upon a showing made to this effect by the owner the exemption should be allowed by the assessor.
The property owner is not a party to this suit. Therefore, the owner cannot be, by a judgment in this case, precluded from the exercise of its right to show that its property is exempt under the organic provisions, supra. Nor shall any judgment entered in this case appear to preclude the owner from the exercise of such legal right. Under the pleadings as presented here, it is not shown that the land-owner is *878entitled to the exemption of the involved property from taxation. Therefore, under the allegations in the pleadings, the relator is entitled to have judgment requiring the tax assessor to enter the assessment of the involved property on the tax books, unless the owner may show unto the assessor that the property is exempt from taxation under the organic provisions, supra. This is necessary because the owner is not a party to this cause.
This clarification shall be filed and considered supplemental to and in connection with the opinions and judgment entered herein on June 28, 1940.
So ordered.
Terrell, C. J., Brown and Thomas, J. J., concur.
Chapman, J., dissents.
(dissenting). — It is my view that the property here involved is exempt from taxation and this Court so held in the case of Marvin v. Housing Authority of Jacksonville, Florida, reported in 133 Fla., page 590, 183 So. 145. The lower court followed the rule enumerated by this Court in said case. The judgment appealed from, I think, should be affirmed on the authority of Marvin v. Housing Authority of Jacksonville.
Chapman, J.
(dissenting). — It is my view that the property here involved is exempt from taxation and this Court so held in the case of Marvin v. Housing Authority of Jacksonville, Florida, reported in 133 Fla., page 590, 183 So. 145. The lower court followed the rule enumerated by this Court in said case. The judgment appealed from, I think, should be affirmed on the authority of Marvin v. Housing Authority of Jacksonville.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Saunders v. City OF Jacksonville, 157 Fla. 240 (Fla. 1946)…authority. It is not inconsistent with the rule announced in the other housing authority cases cited earlier in this opinion. State ex rel. Burbridge v. St. John, 143 Fla. 544, 197 So. 131, is cited for the county but this opinion was modified (see 143 Fla. 876, 197 So. 549) and in our opinion does not apply to these facts. City of Lakeland v. Amos, 106 Fla. 873, 143 So. 744, is cited by the county. The distinguishing feature is to be found that there we upheld an excise tax levied upon the gross receipts…
-
Lanier v. Tyson, 147 So. 2d 365 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)…'Constitution, having specified permissible exemptions, has excluded others. L. Maxcy, Inc. v. Federal Land Bank of Columbia, supra, opinion adhered to 112 Fla. 835,- 151 So. 276; State ex rel. Burbridge v. St. John, 1940, 143 Fla. 544, 197 So. 131, 143 Fla. 876, 197 So. 549. Our decision in this case, however, does not rest on constitutionality, both parties having repeatedly asserted that the constitutionality of § 193.11(3) is not being challenged in this cause. Moreover, it is unnecessary for a court t…
-
Franks v. Davis, 145 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 1962)…na v. Holmes, 246 Ill. 362, 92 N.E. 893; In re Opinion of the Justices, 76 N.H. 588, 79 A. 31; 76 N.H. 609, 85 A. 757; Stillman v. Lynch, 56 Utah 540, 192 P. 272, 12 A.L.R. 552. . State ex rel. Burbridge v. St. John, 143 Fla. 544, 197 So. 131, 134; 143 Fla. 876, 197 So. 549; L. Maxcy, Inc. v. Federal Land Bank, 111 Fla. 116, 150 So. 248; 112 Fla. 835, 151 So. 276; Steuart v. State, 119 Fla. 117, 161 So. 378. Anno. 61 A.L.R.2d 1038, et seq. . State ex rel. Burbridge v. St. John, nota 10, supra, quoting ear…
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
- Marvin v. Hous. Auth. of Jacksonville, 133 Fla. 590 (Fla. 1938)