STATE EX REL. WADKINS
v.
OWENS 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.
In this mandamus case, the Florida Supreme Court compelled county officials to execute a deed to tax-sale property after a purchaser won a public auction and paid the full bid amount. The court held that once the county elected to sell the property and completed the sale through competitive bidding, the officials had no discretion to later withdraw the property by dedicating it to public use.
The Board of County Commissioners must execute and deliver a deed to the purchaser. Once the county elected to sell the property, published notice, held competitive bidding, and accepted the highest bid with payment, the sale was consummated and the officials had no further discretion to dedicate the property to public use or withdraw it from sale.
“Under the statute the Board of County Commissioners had the right to either sell the property or to dedicate it for public use. They elected to sell the property and after notice was published, competitive bidding was had and the sale was consummated by the acceptance of the bid and the money in the amount of the bid. There was nothing further to be done by the respondents except to comply with the terms of the law and execute a deed to the successful bidder.”
Establishes that once the county chose to sell and completed the sale process, its only remaining obligation was to execute the deed.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLake County acquired certain lands for nonpayment of taxes and owned them for more than two years. The county advertised the lands for sale and held a…
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 Fair Dealing cases and more on FLexlaw
MATHEWS, Justice.
This was a mandamus proceeding whereby the relator, J. D. Wadkins, Jr., sought to compel the appellees to execute a deed for certain lands in Lake County, Florida, which had been sold at public auction as provided for by Section 194.55 F.S.A. Alternative writ issued and an answer or return to the same was made in due course.
A motion to strike the answer of the respondents and for a peremptory writ notwithstanding the answer was filed and arguments were had before the trial court, as a result of which a final judgment was entered quashing the alternative writ.
It appears from the pleadings that Lake County had acquired the lands in question for nonpayment of taxes as provided by the statute and had owned such lands for more than 2 years. It appears that all proceedings provided for by the statute were taken in order to advertise said lands. Before the competitive bidding took place, the petitioner Wadkins, paid to the -Clerk $60.10, which was the minimum amount fixed that the County was willing to accept for the said lands. The said sum was paid to the Clerk and in due course and as provided by the statute, the lands were advertised for sale, and were sold on November 20, 1950. It appears that there was actual competitive bidding and the petitioner finally bid $201 which was the highest bid and the said lands were sold to him for that amount. He, thereupon, paid to the Clerk the sum of $201 and said sum was received and collected by the Clerk. Thereafter, he requested the Chairman of the Board of •County Commissioners and the Qerk to issue him a deed for the lands in question as provided by law, and the said officials refused to execute and deliver to him such deed.
As an excuse for not issuing the deed, the respondents in their answer alleged that on December 4, 1950, the said lands were withdrawn from sale and by resolution of the' Board of County Commissioners was dedicated for public use and purpose by the Board of County Commissioners, and again on July 2, 1951, the Board of County Commissioners passed another resolution dedicating the said lands for public use and withdrew the same from sale.
The sale took place on November 20, 1950. The actions of the Board of County Commissioners attempting to dedicate said lands to public use and to withdraw the same from sale occurred on December 4, 1950, and July 2, 1951. This action came too late.
Under the statute the Board of County Commissioners had the right to either sell the property or to dedicate it for public use. They elected to sell the property and after notice was published, competitive bidding was had and the sale was consummated by the acceptance of the bid and the money in the amount of the bid. There was nothing further to be done by the respondents except to comply with the terms of the law and execute a deed to the successful bidder. Fair dealing is required by all parties and public officials should set the example. There is no question raised in this proceeding of any concealment, fraud, collusion or any other misconduct on the part of the appellant and the appellees should have been required to comply with the plain and unmistakable provisions of the law.
Reversed with directions to set aside the order of final judgment striking the motion for peremptory writ and quashing the alternative writ and for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.
HOBSON, C. J., and TERRELL, THOMAS and DREW, JJ., concur. ROBERTS, J., dissents.
SEBRING, J., not participating.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State Ex rel. Victor Chem. Works v. GAY, 74 So. 2d 560 (Fla. 1954)…o retain monies exacted under the guise of a presumptively valid tax law. Indeed, we have on more than one occasion observed when discussing the subject of fair dealing that the State should set the example. See State ex rel. Wadkins v. Owens, Fla., 62 So. 2d 403 and Gay v. Southern Builders, Inc., Fla., 66 So. 2d 499. And we have applied the same principle to political subdivisions of the State. In Webb v. Hillsborough County, 128 Fla. 471, 175 So. 874, 878, we quoted with approval the language of Mr. Chief…
-
GAY v. S. Builders, Inc., 66 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 1953)…he State. It is too much to expect and require private citizens and contractors to perform contracts when the State itself, or its officials, refuses to perform and breach their contracts at will. In the case of State ex rel. Wadkins v. Owens, Fla., 62 So. 2d 403, 404, this Court said: “Fair dealing is required by all parties and public officials should set the example.” The final judgment appealed from should be, and the same is hereby affirmed. TERRELL, Acting C. J., HOBSON, J., and HOLT, Associate Just…
-
City OF Homestead v. Raney Constr., Inc., 357 So. 2d 749 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…ne in that the board of commissioners had advertised a proposed lease and accepted plaintiff’s bid, then sought to rescind its motion. It was held that a binding contract existed. The court, in so holding, quoted from State ex rel. Wadkins v. Owens, 62 So. 2d 403 (Fla.1953), where the Supreme Court said: ** “Fair dealing is required by all parties and public officials should set the example. There is no question raised in this proceeding of any concealment, fraud, collusion or any other misconduct on the p…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence