GOODMAN BANKS, TRUSTEE, APPELLANT,
v.
HARRY SCHOOLEY ET AL., APPELLEES
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.
A trustee challenged a dramatic increase in the tax assessment of over 4,000 acres on Little Pine Island, from $346,400 to approximately $1,500,000, claiming the assessment was arbitrary, capricious, excessive, unequal, and discriminatory. The court reversed the trial judge's finding that the assessment was not arbitrary and capricious, holding that the property had been subjected to discriminatory treatment despite no material change in circumstances.
The court held that the assessment was clearly arbitrary, capricious, unequal, and discriminatory. The sole change—a judicial boundary fixing decree with minimal acreage increase—was insufficient to warrant such a drastic increase in valuation. The property was subjected to discriminatory treatment as the target of the assessor's reappraisal while other similarly situated properties were not.
[1] A tax assessment is arbitrary, capricious, unequal, and discriminatory when a parcel of land is singled out for reappraisal without any change in its circumstances or val…
[2] A judicial decree fixing the boundaries of a parcel of land is without significance of a magnitude that would warrant a drastic increase in its tax assessment.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Banks' parcel stands alone as the target of the assessor's reappraisal. The only change in the situation has been a judicial decree fixing its boundaries.”
Establishes that the property was singled out for reassessment with no material change in circumstances justifying the increase
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBanks held as trustee more than 4,000 acres on Little Pine Island in Lee County. The property was assessed consistently at $346,400 from 1967 through …
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.
MANN, Chief Judge.
Banks holds, as trustee, more than 4,000 acres on Little Pine Island in Lee County, It was assessed in 1967, 1968, 1969 and 1970 for $346,400. In 1971 the assessor valued it originally at $2,000,000, and that figure was reduced by the Board of Adjustment to approximately $1,500,000. Banks’ claim that the assessment was “arbitrary, capricious, excessive, unequal and discriminatory,” was held to have been unproved by the trial judge. It is true that the assessment was not shown to be excessive, but it is shown clearly to be arbitrary, capricious, unequal and discriminatory. Banks’ parcel stands alone as the target of the assessor’s reappraisal. The only change in the situation has been a judicial decree fixing its boundaries. The deputy assessor seems to have attributed great weight to this event but we view it as without significance of the -magnitude which would warrant such a drastic increase. The court ruling would appear without significance whatsoever, except for a slight increase in the acreage included within the judgment fixing boundaries. Certainly most landowners get by without judicial declaration of their boundaries, and the assessor’s argument reminds one of the claim that one returned from the State Hospital has a superior claim to sanity because he has papers to prove it. In essence, nothing has changed. It is still the same old land.
There is an assertion in the record that “all lands are assessed at just value” hut this is a conclusion without evidentiary force when refuted by all the evidence. It appears that the appellant’s lands have been subjected to discriminatory treatment and that the learned trial judge was in error. Schooley v. Sunset Realty Corp., Fla.App.2d 1966, 185 So. 2d 1.
Reversed.
BOARDMAN, J. and COWART, JOE A., Jr., Associate Judge, concur.