FIRSTAMERICA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
COUNTY OF VOLUSIA, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA AND FRED O. DICKINSON, JR., AS COMPTROLLER OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
FirstAmerica Development Corporation appealed a trial court judgment denying agricultural tax classification for their Volusia County property for the 1968 tax year. The court affirmed the trial judge's factual finding that the land's primary purpose was subdivision and land sales, with agricultural use being merely incidental, thus failing to qualify for agricultural classification under Florida Statute 193.201.
The property did not qualify for agricultural classification because although it was used for agricultural purposes during the tax year, such use was not the primary use of the land but rather 'clearly incidental' to the owner's primary purpose of subdividing and marketing the property as individual lots. The trial judge's factual findings are affirmed.
[1] Whether land is used primarily for bona fide agricultural purposes is a question of fact for the trial judge.
[2] A trial judge, as the trier of fact, is entitled to determine the credibility of witnesses based on their demeanor and testimony.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“When a trial judge sits as a trier of the facts and has an opportunity to observe the witnesses, their demeanor, candor or lack of it, he is entitled to, indeed he must, determine whether the testimony of such witnesses is worthy of belief. Such a determination, in the absence of proof of bias or prejudice (which has not even been suggested in the case sub judice) will not be disturbed on appeal.”
Establishes the standard of review for factual findings by a trial judge, particularly regarding witness credibility
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFirstAmerica owned a large tract of land in Volusia County and sought agricultural classification for tax assessment purposes for calendar year 1968. …
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 Appellate Deference To Factual Findings cases and more on FLexlaw
BOYER, Judge.
We have for review a final judgment entered by the trial judge following a trial before the court without a jury, jury trial having been specifically waived by stipulation of the parties.
The plaintiff below, appellant here, is the owner of a large tract of land in Volu-sia County. Plaintiff urged below, and now here, that for the calendar year 1968 its said property should have been classified and assessed as agricultural lands pursuant to Florida Statute 193.201. The trial court found and ruled contra, resulting in this appeal.
All parties agree that if the subject land was being used on the first day of the year in question primarily for bona fide agricultural purposes then it qualified for agricultural classification for tax assessment purposes. Therefore, whether the subject property was used primarily for bona fide agricultural purposes was a matter of fact to be determined by the trial judge, based upon the evidence adduced before him. (Walden v. Borden Company, Sup.Ct.Fla. 1970, 235 So. 2d 300)
The trial judge entered a lengthy and well reasoned final judgment reciting his findings and conclusions. Among other things, he specifically found and recited that the testimony of some of appellant’s crucial witnesses was successfully impeached. When a trial judge sits as a trier of the facts and has an opportunity to observe the witnesses, their demeanor, candor or lack of it, he is entitled to, indeed he must, determine whether the testimony of such witnesses is worthy of belief. Such a determination, in the absence of proof of bias or prejudice (which has not even been suggested in the case sub judice) will not be disturbed on appeal.
In the final judgment here appealed the trial judge recited that he recognized that an agricultural use does not necessarily have to be efficient or economically sound in order to qualify the land for agricultural classification. However, he found that the land involved in the case sub judice was acquired by the plaintiff for the primary purpose of subdividing it and marketing it as lots in a land installment sales promotion; that although plaintiff made an agricultural use of the land during the calendar year 1968 such was not the primary use but rather a “clearly incidental” use; and that therefore the subject land did not qualify for agricultural classification.
Our reading of the record reveals that the evidence was conflicting and that there was ample credible evidence adduced at the trial to sustain the trial judge’s findings. Under such circumstances we are not permitted to substitute our opinion for the findings of the able trial judge. (See Roberts v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Ins. Co., Fla.App. (1st) 1968, 215 So. 2d 59; Parker v. State, Fla.App. (1st) 1974, 295 So. 2d 312; Merritt v. Williams, Fla.App. (1st) 1974, 295 So. 2d 310; and Exchange Bank of St. Augustine v. The Florida Nat. Bank, Sup.Ct.Fla.1974, 292 So. 2d 361.)
In view of the findings of the trial judge, the cases relied upon by appellant (Smith v. Ring, Fla.App. (1st) 1971, 250 So. 2d 913; Matheson v. Elcook, Fla.App. (3rd) 1965, 173 So. 2d 164; McKinney v. Hunt, Fla.App. (1st) 1971, 251 So. 2d 6; Hausman v. Rudkin, Fla.App. (4th) 1972, 268 So. 2d 407; Sapp v. Conrad, Fla.App. (1st) 1970, 240 So. 2d 884; Smith v. Parrish, Fla.App. (1st) 1972, 262 So. 2d 237 and Stiles v. Brown, Fla.App. (1st) 1965, 177 So. 2d 672) are not controlling.
Appellant having failed to demonstrate error, the final judgment from whence this appeal emanated is
Affirmed.
SPECTOR, Acting C. J„ and JOHNSON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Markham v. E.C. Fogg, III, 458 So. 2d 1122 (Fla. 1984)…here is competent, substantial evidence to buttress this finding, an appeals court should not substitute its judgment for that of the trier of fact. Greenwood v. Oates, 251 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 1971); Firstamerica Development Corp. v. County of Volusia, 298 So. 2d 191 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974), cert, denied, 312 So. 2d 755 (Fla.1975). Since the issue of whether the land was primarily being used for agricultural purposes is one of fact, the trial court’s finding is clothed with a presumption of correctness. Since the ev…
-
Hill v. Parks, 373 So. 2d 376 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)…evidence adduced by appellant. The trial judge, as trier of fact, had the right to reject the evidence presented by appellant and disregard it if he found it unbelievable and lacking in credence. Firstamerica Development Corp. v. County of Volusia, 298 So. 2d 191 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974), cert. denied, 312 So. 2d 755 (Fla.1975); Williams v. Canal Insurance Co., 177 So. 2d 548 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965). However, there is no indication that the trial judge found this evidence unworthy of belief; rather, he concluded that…
-
In re Est. OF Francis M. McGAHEE. Barbara Lea Perry v. Neesmith, 550 So. 2d 83 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)…uess the trial court on issues of fact where, as here, there is competent, substantial evidence in the record to support the trial court’s determination. The trial court sat as a trier of fact. In FirstAmerica Development Corp. v. County of Volusia, 298 So. 2d 191, 192 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974) we stated that: When a trial judge sits as a trier of the facts and has an opportunity to observe the witnesses, their demeanor, candor or lack of it, he is entitled to, indeed he must, determine whether the testimony of su…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (13 total)
- Ford Hausman v. Rudkin, 268 So. 2d 407 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)
- Matheson v. Elcook, 173 So. 2d 164 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Exch. Bank OF ST. Augustine v. The Fla. Nat'l Bank OF Jacksonville, 292 So. 2d 361 (Fla. 1974)
- Stiles v. Brown, 177 So. 2d 672 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965)
- R. R. (Bob) Walden v. The Borden Co., 235 So. 2d 300 (Fla. 1970)
- Smith v. Ring, 250 So. 2d 913 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971)
- Roberts v. S. Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co., 215 So. 2d 59 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968)
- Shellle E. McKINNEY v. Alpha L. Hunt and Elizabeth S. Hunt, 251 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971)
- Parker v. State, 295 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)
- Sapp v. Conrad, 240 So. 2d 884 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970)