PETER W. HERZOG AND JOAN L. HERZOG, APPELLANTS,
v.
SAM J. COLDING, AS COLLIER COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER, AND DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE OF THE STATE OF 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.
Missouri residents who owned a part-time home in Florida challenged a property tax assessment on their household goods and personal effects. The court reversed the summary judgment for the tax assessors, holding that household goods and personal effects are not subject to ad valorem taxation in Florida under state law, and certified the question to the state supreme court.
No household goods and personal effects are subject to ad valorem taxation in Florida, whether owned by residents or nonresidents. The court therefore reversed the summary judgment without reaching the constitutional question regarding whether taxation of nonresidents' but not residents' household goods would violate the privileges and immunities clause.
[1] Household goods and personal effects are not subject to ad valorem taxation in Florida.
[2] A prior appellate decision holding that household goods are not subject to ad valorem taxation in Florida remains persuasive authority on the merits, even if quashed by t…
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“no household goods and personal effects are subject to ad valorem taxation in Florida, whether owned by residents or nonresidents”
Establishes the core holding that household goods are not taxable property under Florida law regardless of the taxpayer's residency status
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Herzogs are Missouri residents who own a home in Collier County, Florida used as a part-time dwelling containing household goods and personal effe…
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 Privileges And Immunities Clause cases and more on FLexlaw
DANAHY, Acting Chief Judge.
The appellants are residents of the State of Missouri who own a home in Collier County which they use as a part-time dwelling. The home contains household goods and personal effects. It is not rental property and the household goods and personal effects are not used commercially. The appellees assessed a tax on the appellants’ household goods and personal effects in their Florida home. The appellants brought this suit contesting the validity of the tax and the trial judge entered a final summary judgment for the appellees. We reverse.
The appellants argue, first, that if the household goods of nonresidents are subject to ad valorem taxation in Florida, but the household goods of Florida residents are not, the tax as to nonresidents violates the privileges and immunities clause of the United States Constitution.1 Alternatively, they argue that no household goods, whether owned by residents or nonresidents, are subject to ad valorem taxation in Florida under applicable Florida law. We agree with the appellants’ second proposition; therefore, we do not reach the constitutional question.
In Department of Revenue v. Markham, 381 So. 2d 1101 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979), our sister court had occasion to examine the various Florida statutes dealing with the taxation of household goods, which are, to say the least, confusing. See §§ 192.001(11), 192.011, 192.032, 193.114, 195.073, 196.001, and 196.181, Fla.Stat. (1981). In an exhaustive opinion, the court came to the conclusion that no household goods and personal effects are subject to ad valorem taxation in Florida, whether owned by residents or nonresidents. We agree. The decision in the Markham case was quashed by our supreme court in Department of Revenue v. Markham, 396 So. 2d 1120 (Fla.1981), on the sole ground that the plaintiff in that suit did not have standing to raise the issue addressed by the First District Court of Appeal. Therefore, the supreme court’s quashal of the First District Court of Appeal’s opinion does not foreclose this court from considering and agreeing with the merits of that opinion on the tax question presented.
We do, however, consider this to be a question of great public importance. Accordingly, we certify the following question to the supreme court:
ARE HOUSEHOLD GOODS AND PERSONAL EFFECTS SUBJECT TO AD VALOREM TAXATION UNDER THE STATUTES AND CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA?
REVERSED with directions to enter judgment for the appellants.
CAMPBELL and SCHOONOVER, JJ., concur. . U.S. Const., Art. IV, § 2.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Colding v. Herzog, 467 So. 2d 980 (Fla. 1985)…OVERTON, Justice. This is a petition to review a decision of the Second District Court of Appeal reported as Herzog v. Colding, 437 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983), holding that household goods and personal effects in Florida are not subject to ad valorem taxation, and approving, in its entirety, the First District Court of Appeal’s opinion in Department of Revenue v. Markham, 381 So. 2d 110…
Authorities Cited
- Dep't OF Revenue OF the State OF Fla. v. Markham, 396 So. 2d 1120 (Fla. 1981)
- Em's Coffee Shop & Kent Ins. Co. v. Turner, 381 So. 2d 1101 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)