CHAPPARAL PARTNERS, A FLORIDA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, BY AND THROUGH FIRST INTERSTATE BANK OF CALIFORNIA AS TRUSTEE FOR TRUST NUMBER 7413127, A GENERAL PARTNER, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, 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.
Chapparal Partners appealed a documentary stamp tax assessment on deeds transferring properties encumbered by substantial indebtedness. The court held that the tax must be based on the amount of surviving debt, not reduced by the partner's receipt of covenants not to sue, because the statute's definition of consideration includes encumbrances regardless of whether underlying indebtedness is assumed.
The documentary stamp tax must be based on the amount of the surviving indebtedness encumbering the property. The statute's specific definition of consideration to include encumbrances cannot be avoided by the receipt of non-monetary consideration, even if substantial.
[1] Documentary stamp taxes on the conveyance of real property are assessed based on the amount of indebtedness encumbering the property at the time of conveyance, even if th…
[2] The "consideration" for the conveyance of real property, for purposes of documentary stamp taxes, includes the amount of any mortgage, purchase money mortgage lien, or ot…
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“the amount of any mortgage, purchase money mortgage lien, or other encumbrance, whether or not the underlying indebtedness is assumed”
The statutory definition of consideration that the Department relied upon to assess taxes based on surviving debt.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceChapparal Partners, a general partnership, received two Jacksonville properties from borrowers in exchange for covenants not to sue guarantors on defa…
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 Documentary Stamp Tax cases and more on FLexlaw
BARFIELD, Judge.
The appellant, Chapparal Partners, is a general partnership composed of Congden Properties, Inc. and First Interstate Bank of California as trustee for Trust Number 7413127. First Interstate Bank held defaulted notes and mortgages on two properties in Jacksonville, Florida, which were worth substantially less than the amount of indebtedness due on the notes. The borrowers conveyed the properties to the appellant. For reasons not entirely clear from the record before this court, First Interstate Bank, which could not proceed against the maker of the notes and mortgages beyond recovery of the properties, entered into covenants not to sue the guarantors on the notes in exchange for the conveyance of the properties. The parties to this litigation agree that the several indebtednesses on the properties were not discharged and remain encumbrances of record against the property.
The dispute before this court concerns the amount of documentary stamps to affix to the deeds. The Department of Revenue assessed the stamp taxes based on the amount of indebtedness encumbering the property at the time of conveyance. The Department relies on that part of section 201.02(1), Florida Statutes (1991), which defines “consideration” for the conveyance to include “the amount of any mortgage, purchase money mortgage lien, or other encumbrance, whether or not the underlying indebtedness is assumed.” The appellant contends that the tax should be based on that part of the referenced statute that states, “If the consideration ... includes property other than money, it is presumed that the consideration is equal to the fair market value of the real property....” The appellant’s argument is based upon the assumption that the additional consideration in the form of covenants not to sue is “property other than money” which removes “consideration” in this case from the specific definition relied upon by the Department.
Acceptance of the appellant’s argument would require us to render the clear legislative intent to define “consideration” in terms of the amount of an encumbrance that survives a conveyance as meaningless. The spe- eific definition could routinely be avoided by the giving of any non-money consideration, however inconsequential. Since the appellant chose to take the property still encumbered by the indebtedness, the Department was correct in assessing documentary stamp taxes on the basis of the debt.
The remaining issue is without merit. The decision of the trial court is AFFIRMED.
ZEHMER, C.J. and SMITH, Senior Judge, concur.