B. L. HOLMAN AND JOHN L. SMITH, INC., A CORPORATION,
v.
CITY OF FORT PIERCE, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION UNDER THE LAWS OF FLORIDA
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 affirmed a lower court decision upholding the City of Fort Pierce's property tax assessment of $905.00 for a vacant lot, rejecting the owner's challenge that the County's lower assessment of $500.00 was more appropriate. The case illustrates the discretionary nature of property valuation for tax purposes and the difficulty courts face in overturning assessments when conflicting expert valuations exist.
The court affirmed the chancellor's decision upholding the City's assessment of $905.00, finding that the lower court's holding did not constitute reversible error based on the record presented.
“Frequently conflicts of views occur and develop in the common effort to reach a valuation of property for taxation purposes.”
Establishes that valuation disputes are common and acknowledged in property tax law
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHolman and Smith, Inc. owned a vacant lot in Fort Pierce that they acquired during the Florida boom years. The owners had paid carrying charges on 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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Full Cash Value cases and more on FLexlaw
The point involved in this controversy is the full cash value as of January 1, 1943, of a described vacant or unimproved lot situated in the City of Fort Pierce, Florida. The City placed an assessment value on the property in the sum of $905.00, while the County of St. Lucie, operating *744under similar principles of law, placed the lot on its tax roll at the sum of $500.00. Frequently conflicts of views occur and develop in the common effort to reach a valuation of property for taxation purposes. See Schleman v. Connecticut General Life Ins. Co., 151 Fla. 96, 9 So. (2nd) 197.
It is disclosed by the record that the owners acquired the vacant lot property during the Florida boom years and have paid as carrying charges on the property over- these years a greater sum, apparently, than the property can be sold for on the market. The owners have kept the property listed with real estate dealers, but unfortunately a sale has not materialized. One group of witnesses fixed the value of the lot for taxation purposes at the sum of $905.00, while the other group of witnesses fixed the value of the same property for taxation purpose at the sum of $500.00. The chancellor heard the parties, studied the record and reached the conclusion that the assessment made by the City of Fort Pierce in the sum of $905.00 should not be disturbed. We cannot say on this record that such a holding constitutes reversible error. Vacant or unimproved property as here , involved usually is not desired for investment purpose when other more attractive fields for investments can be had or obtained. The owners of .the vacant or unimproved lot at the close of the boom possibly would have been in a better financial position, when , considering the carrying charges of this property, to have abandoned the investment and charged the losses off as of the boom period.
Affirmed.
BUFORD, C. J., TERRELL, CHAPMAN and ADAMS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hajec v. Town OF Medley, 189 So. 2d 835 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)…chosen to attack the existence of the municipal corporation was improper, and that Section 167.44, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., does not restrict a municipal tax assessment to or below the county assessment, citing Holman v. City of Fort Pierce, 1944, 154 Fla. 743, 19 So. 2d 58. It is this order that the plaintiffs seek to have reviewed. The plaintiffs’ amended complaint alleged, inter alia, that the defendants, without consideration of the general laws of Florida, as well as the ordinances of the Town of Me…
Authorities Cited
- Schleman v. Conn. Gen. Life Ins. Co., 151 Fla. 96 (Fla. 1942)