W. E. VASSAR
v.
B. ARNOLD, MAYOR-COMMISSIONER WALTER PETERSON, J. W. SNEED, C. D. MUSTAINE AND HENRY R. JONES, AS CITY COMMISSIONERS; HOWARD HORTON, CITY CLERK
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 denying a mandamus petition that sought to compel Fort Pierce to levy taxes under a charter amendment adopting the county's assessment roll. The court held that municipalities must make their own assessments for municipal purposes and cannot simply adopt a county's assessment roll by legislative mandate.
Chapter 22296 is invalid insofar as it attempts to adopt bodily the St. Lucie County assessment roll for the City of Fort Pierce. While a city may voluntarily adopt a county assessment roll in its discretion if conforming to its assessment laws, the Legislature cannot compel this adoption. The provision making the county tax assessor ex officio city tax assessor violates constitutional prohibitions against special or local laws regulating municipal officer duties. Additionally, Sections 116 and 117 of the chapter are unenforceable due to ambiguity and conflicting provisions.
“The Legislature shall authorize the several counties and incorporated cities or towns in the State to assess and impose taxes for county and municipal purposes, and for no other purposes, and all property shall be taxed upon the principles established for State taxation. But the cities and incorporated towns shall make their own assessments for municipal purposes upon the property within their limits.”
Constitutional provision requiring municipalities to make their own assessments, which forms the basis for invalidating the chapter's attempt to impose county assessment rolls
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceChapter 22296 amended the charter of the City of Fort Pierce to adopt bodily the St. Lucie County assessment roll for municipal tax purposes and provi…
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 Special Or Local Laws cases and more on FLexlaw
This appeal is from a final decree denying a motion for peremptory writ of mandamus notwithstanding the return and dismissing the alternative writ which sought to require the City of Fort Pierce in St. Lucie County to levy and collect municipal taxes in the manner provided by Chapter 22296, Acts of 1943. A return to the alternative writ challenges the constitutional validity of the said Act.
Chapter 22296 is an amendment to the charter of the City of Fort Pierce and it is contended that it is violative of Section 5, Article IX and Section 20, Article III of the Constitution of Florida in that it attempts to adopt bodily the tax assessment roll of St. Lucie County and thereby relieves the City of making its assessments for municipal purposes.
The pertinent part of Section 5, Article IX of the Constitution provides: '
“The Legislature shall authorize the several counties and incorporated cities or towns in the State to assess and impose taxes for county and municipal purposes, and for no other purposes, and all property shall be taxed upon the principles established for State taxation. But the cities and incorporated towns shall make their own assessments for municipal purposes upon the property within their limits.”
A reasonable interpretation of, this provision requires municipalities to make their own assessments for municipal purposes. In so far as Chapter 22296 attempts to adopt *759bodily the St. Lucie County assessment roll for the City of' Fort Pierce, it is invalid. City of Bradenton v. S. A. L. Ry. Co., 100 Fla. 606, 130 So. 21. The City may in its discretion adopt the assessment roll of the county in so far as it applies to the City if deemed to be in conformity with its assessment laws but it is not competent for the Legislature to do.
Section 55 of Chapter 22296 also provides that the tax assessor of St. Lucie County shall be ex officio tax assessor of the City of Fort Pierce. It is contended that this provision violates that part of Section 20, Article III of the Constitution prohibiting the Legislature from passing any special or local law regulating the jurisdiction and duties of any class of officers except municipal officers.
In Lainhart v. Catts, 73 Fla. 735, 75 So. 47; Martin v. Dade Muck Land Co., 95 Fla. 530, 116 So. 449, and cases of similar import we held that the Legislature could as an incident to the formation of a taxing district for governmental purposes impose administrative duties on State and county officers to effectuate the object of the district but even if it be within the perview of the Constitution to do so, we have never extended this principle to municipalities.
It further appears and was held by the Court below that. Sections 116 and 117 of Chapter 22296 when read in connection with other provisions of the city charter are so ambiguous and conflicting in their import as to give effect to either section produces results not contemplated by the Legislature. Town of Boynton v. State ex rel. Davis, 103 Fla. 1113, 138 So. 639. For this reason the said provisions are non enforceable.
The judgment appealed from is affirmed.
Affirmed.
BUFORD, C. J., BROWN, CHAPMAN, ADAMS and SE-BRING, JJ., concur.
THOMAS, J., not participating.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Marsh v. Garwood, 65 So. 2d 15 (Fla. 1953)…n the Commission, the exact nature of which is imperfectly" indicated, it fails completely and in every particular to indicate the method by which the power is to be exercised. Section 11 of the, Act, therefore, is inoperative. See Vassar v. Arnold, 154 Fla. 757, 18 So. 2d 906; Sutherland on Statutory Construction, 3rd ed., §§ 4503, 4920, 6603, 6604. We have no doubt that the Legislature had authority to empower the trial judge having jurisdiction over a person committing one of the offenses included withi…
-
State v. Reedy Creek Improvement Dist., 216 So. 2d 202 (Fla. 1968)…f a taxing district for governmental purposes in order to effectuate the purposes of the district. Wilson v. Hillsborough County Aviation Authority (Fla.1962), 138 So. 2d 65; State v. City of Tampa (Fla.1954), 72 So. 2d 371; Vassar v. Arnold (1944), 154 Fla. 757, 18 So. 2d 906; Martin v. Dade Muck Land Co. (1928), 95 Fla. 530, 116 So. 449; Lainhart v. Catts (1916), 73 Fla. 735, 75 So. 47. In Lainhart v. Catts the duties imposed on tax assessors and collectors within the district there considered resemble th…
-
Reese v. Thorne, 297 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 1974)…f Miami, Ch. 10847, Special Acts of 1925, which gave the chief of police a broad range of powers over the police force subject to the supervision of the Director of Public Safety. Reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in Vassar v. Arnold, 18 So. 2d 906 (Fla.1944), in which a special act of the State Legislature was held non-enforceable because when read in conjunction with the city charter, it appeared so ambiguous and conflicting as to yield a result not contemplated by the Legislature. The situa…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Lainhart v. Catts, 73 Fla. 735 (Fla. 1917)
- Martin v. Dade Muck Land Co., 95 Fla. 530 (Fla. 1928)
- Town of Boynton v. State, 103 Fla. 1113 (Fla. 1932)
- City of Bradenton v. Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co., 100 Fla. 606 (Fla. 1930)