JAMES BAILEY, VOLUSIA COUNTY TAX ASSESSOR AND WILLIAM SCOVAL, CHAIRMAN, VOLUSIA COUNTY BOARD OF TAX ADJUSTMENT, APPELLANTS,
v.
PLAZA HOTEL CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEE
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 court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to vacate default, had subject matter jurisdiction, and properly ordered a de novo hearing before the Board of Tax Adjustment.
Plaintiff alleged an excessive ad valorem real property tax assessment. After a default was entered, defendants' motion to vacate was denied, and 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 De Novo Hearing cases and more on FLexlaw
BOYER, Chief Judge.
Plaintiff, appellee here, filed its complaint, alleging that its 1974 ad valorem real property tax assessment was excessive. After plaintiff’s motion for default judgment was entered by the Circuit Court Clerk, defendants, appellants here, filed a sworn motion to vacate default. The trial court entered final judgment in favor of plaintiff, thereby denying defendants’ motion to vacate default and further ordering the Volusia County Board of Tax Adjustment to reconvene and reassess the valuation of plaintiff’s property. Defendants have appealed, arguing that their motion to vacate default should have been granted, that the final judgment was improperly entered in the absence of supporting evidence, and that, in any event, the trial court was without subject matter jurisdiction to render final judgment.
The principles relative to entry of defaults and vacation thereof are recited in this Court’s opinion in Metcalf v. Langston, Fla.App.1st, 1974, 296 So. 2d 81, cert. dism., Sup.Ct.Fla., 302 So. 2d 414, and no useful purpose will be served by recitation here. Suffice to say that our examination of the record convinces us that the learned trial judge did not abuse his discretion in denying appellants’ motion to vacate the default entered against them. (See North Shore Hospital, Inc. v. Barber, Sup.Ct.Fla. 1962, 143 So. 2d 849, 852)
We also find that the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction. (See Maccabee Investments, Inc. v. Markham, Fla.App.4th, 1975, 311 So. 2d 718).
Finally, we hold that under the peculiar facts of this particular case there was no error in ordering a de novo hearing before the Board of Tax Adjustment, since it is that body which is responsible for hearing petitions relating to assessments. (See F.S. 194.032)
We do not here consider the merits of appellee’s case. We only hold that the final judgment here appealed should be, and is
AFFIRMED.
McCORD and MILLS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
COE v. ITT Cmty. Dev. Corp., 362 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 1978)…(b)(3), Fla.Const. . See Lake Worth Towers, Inc. v. Gerstung, 262 So. 2d 1, 4 (Fla. 1972). . Maccabee Investments, Inc. v. Markham, 311 So. 2d 718 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975), rev’d on other grounds, 343 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 1977); Bailey v. Plaza Hotel Corp., 335 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976), cert. denied, 341 So. 2d 1079 (Fla. 1977). [*10] The Maccabee court’s conclusion that this provision constitutes a statute of limitation rather than a jurisdictional requisite was based largely on our misappellation in Gerstung.…
-
COE v. ITT Cmty. Dev. Corp., 349 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)…r ago, in a case directly raising the question, this court held that a suit contesting a tax assessment was within the circuit court’s jurisdiction notwithstanding it was begun beyond the 60-day limitation period. Bailey v. Plaza Hotel Corp., [*656] 335 So. 2d 16, 17 (Pla. 1st DCA 1976), cert. den., 341 So. 2d 1079 (Fla.1977): “We also find that the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction. (See Maccabee Investments, Inc. v. Markham, Fla. App. 4th, 1975, 311 So. 2d 718).” Maccabee squarely held that for…
Authorities Cited
- N. Shore Hosp., Inc. v. Barber, 143 So. 2d 849 (Fla. 1962)
- Metcalf v. Langston, 296 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)
- Metcalf v. Langston, 302 So. 2d 414 (Fla. 1974)
- Mitrisin v. Hill, 302 So. 2d 414 (Fla. 1974)
- MacCabee Invs., Inc. v. Markham, 311 So. 2d 718 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)