DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE OF FLORIDA, AN AGENCY OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, AND ROBERT SHEVIN, AS ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANTS,
v.
YOUNG AMERICAN BUILDERS, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND A. CURTIS POWERS, AS CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT IN AND FOR ALACHUA COUNTY, 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.
The Department of Revenue challenged a circuit court's denial of its motion to dismiss an action by Young American Builders seeking judicial review of a state tax rule on constitutional grounds. The court held that constitutional challenges to administrative rules are not subject to the exhaustion of administrative remedies requirement and that circuit courts retain jurisdiction to determine constitutional disputes.
The circuit court properly has jurisdiction to hear constitutional challenges to administrative rules, and the Administrative Procedure Act does not require exhaustion of administrative remedies before seeking judicial review of constitutional claims. Constitutional disputes must be determined by the courts, not relegated to administrative proceedings.
[1] A circuit court has jurisdiction to determine the merits of a constitutional challenge to an administrative rule, even if an administrative remedy might exist for factual…
[2] The Administrative Procedure Act does not relegate Fourteenth Amendment questions to administrative determination.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“If as Builders contends the Rule is on its face unconstitutional by due process standards, there is no remedy for it in ch. 120, F.S.1975.”
Establishes that constitutional claims cannot be resolved through administrative procedures under the Administrative Procedure Act
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceYoung American Builders filed suit seeking an injunction against the Department of Revenue's Rule 12A-4.13(22), which taxes the total price of a home …
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 Administrative Remedies cases and more on FLexlaw
SMITH, Judge.
By interlocutory appeal the Department of Revenue and Attorney General complain of the circuit court’s order denying their motion to dismiss an action by Young American Builders, a corporation, for an injunction against the application to Builders of the Department’s Rule 12A-4.13(22), which Builders alleges violates the due process clauses of the Florida and United States Constitutions. The Department and Attorney General assert that Builders has an administrative remedy under ch. 120, F.S., and consequently that the circuit court lacks jurisdiction.
The questioned Rule provides in pertinent part that the documentary stamp tax payable on a deed under ch. 201, F.S., shall be calculated on the total price of a home, including house and lot, when developed by a corporation which conveys the lot to a homesteader and then builds his house on it. The Rule provides that “the critical factor” in determining whether to tax the transaction as a unity “is the intention of the parties.”
Builders’ complaint asserts that the Rule is unconstitutional because there is no opportunity for a hearing before its application by the Department and because it creates an “irrebutable presumption” that specified transactions are “joint venture contracts” or “package deals.” The Department and Attorney General aver that a ch. 120, F.S., hearing to determine whether Builders’ transactions are “package deals” is precisely what the Rule contemplates and what ^Builders should have sought administratively before seeking judicial relief. See Pest Control Comm’n of Fla. v. Ace Pest Control, Inc., 214 So. 2d 892 (Fla.App. 1st, 1968); Odham v. Foremost Dairies, Inc., 128 So. 2d 586, 593 (Fla. 1961).
It is clear to us that the circuit court has jurisdiction to act and properly denied the motion to dismiss. It may well be, as the Department and Attorney General assert, that the attacked Rule, far from creating an “irrebutable presumption” against Builders, should be construed as envisioning an administrative hearing on the appropriateness of the application of the Rule to Builders. The trial court may agree that a hearing is necessarily implied in the Rule’s concern for “the intention of the parties”. But the relative merits of the parties’ positions do not deprive the circuit court of jurisdiction to determine the merits. If as Builders contends the Rule is on its face unconstitutional by due process standards, there is no remedy for it in ch. 120, F.S.1975. The Administrative Procedure Act could not and does not relegate Fourteenth Amendment questions to administrative determination, nor restrict the occasions for judicial consideration of them by reference in § 120.73 to ch. 86, F.S., nor otherwise impair the judicial function to determine constitutional disputes. Art. II, § 3, Fla.Const.; State ex rel. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. State Board of Equalizers, 84 Fla. 592, 94 So. 681 (1922) ; State of Fla., Dep’t of Admin., Div. of Personnel v. State of Fla., Dep’t of Admin., Div. of Admin. Hearings, et al., 326 So. 2d 187 (Fla.App. 1st, 1976), and cases cited.
This interlocutory appeal having been found to be without substantial merit (Rule 4.2c, F.A.R.), it is
DISMISSED.
BOYER, C. J., and RAWLS, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (32 total)
-
State of Fla. ex rel. Dep't OF Gen. Servs. v. Willis, 344 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)…atise 69 (1958).10 We have acknowledged that the Administrative Procedure Act does not and cannot displace circuit court jurisdiction to enjoin enforcement of facially unconstitutional agency rules. Department of Revenue v. Young American Builders, 330 So. 2d 864, 865 (Fla.1st DCA 1976). See also Department of Revenue v. Crisp, 337 So. 2d 404, 406 (Fla.2d DCA 1976). That jurisdiction remains unimpaired, a necessary concomitant of the judicial power vested in circuit courts by Article V, Sections 1 and 5 of t…
-
KEY Haven Associated Enters., Inc. v. Bd. OF Trs. OF the Internal Improvement Tr. Fund, 427 So. 2d 153 (Fla. 1982)…for the type of challenge presented in Gulf Pines would be needlessly time-consuming and expensive. Since the facial constitutionality of a statute may not be decided in an administrative proceeding, Department of Revenue v. Young American Builders, 330 So. 2d 864 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976), this type of constitutional issue could not, absent recourse to the circuit courts, be addressed until the administrative process is concluded and the claim is before a district court of appeal on direct review of the agency act…
-
Gulf Pines Mem'l Park, Inc. v. Oaklawn Mem'l Park, Inc., 361 So. 2d 695 (Fla. 1978)…would never be reached if, as Oaklawn claims, Chapter 76-251 is either unconstitutional or inapplicable. Since the administrative hearing officer lacks jurisdiction to consider constitutional issues, Department of Revenue v. Young American Builders, 330 So. 2d 864 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976), it is pointless to require applicants to endure the time and expense of full administrative proceedings to demonstrate “need” before obtaining a judicial determination as to the validity of that statutory prerequisite. For anoth…
Previewing 3 of 32 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Odham v. Foremost Dairies, Inc., 128 So. 2d 586 (Fla. 1961)
- State v. The Bd. of Equalizers of the State of Fla., 84 Fla. 592 (Fla. 1922)
- State v. State, 326 So. 2d 187 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)
- Smith v. State, 214 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Pest Control Comm'n OF Fla. v. ACE Pest Control, Inc., 214 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968)