FLORIDA LAND COMPANY, A CORPORATION ORGANIZED AND EXISTING UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
M. D. GRAHAM, AS TAX COLLECTOR OF LEVY COUNTY, FLORIDA, 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.
Florida Land Company sought to enjoin the sale of its lands for taxes, claiming they were assessed at higher valuations than similar farm lands in Levy County. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's dissolution of the temporary restraining order, holding that a claim of excessive valuation alone, without evidence of fraud or intentional discrimination, is insufficient grounds for equitable relief.
A claim of excessive valuation alone, resulting from a bona fide but mistaken exercise of judgment by the tax assessor, does not provide grounds for equitable relief unless the valuation is so flagrantly and obviously excessive as to amount to fraud and clearly impute to the assessor an intention to arbitrarily discriminate. The complainant must comply with statutory requirements including tendering the full amount of tax admittedly due or filing a receipt of payment prior to suit.
“Mere inadvertence, or á bona fide mistake of judgment, in fixing a valuation for purposes of taxation, does not, in itself, amount in law to a fraud, and relief will not be granted by courts of equity solely upon the ground that the valuation is excessive, unless such valuation is so obviously and flagrantly excessive as to amount in law to a fraud and clearly imputes to the tax assessor an intention to arbitrarily discriminate against the complaining taxpayer.”
Establishes the standard that excessive valuation alone, absent fraud or intentional discrimination, does not warrant equitable relief.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFlorida Land Company's lands were assessed at $3.00 per acre for 1926 taxes. The company filed a bill of complaint in Levy County Circuit Court seekin…
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 Tax Assessment Valuation cases and more on FLexlaw
Buford, J.
The appellant exhibited its bill of complaint in the Circuit Court in and for Levy County seeking to enjoin the sale of certain lands in that county for taxes assessed for the year 1926. On hearing a temporary restraining order was granted. Thereafter motion was made to dissolve the temporary restraining order and thereafter that motion came on to be heard and an order was made dissolving the temporary restraining order. From this order appeal was taken.
The ground of the complaint was that the lands of the complainant which had been assessed at $3.00 per acre were assessed at a higher valuation than was certain farm and agricultural lands assessed in the county. The bill does not allege that the lands were assessed higher than their actual value, or at a higher valuation than were the lands of like character and like situation assessed.
„ In the City of Tampa v. Palmer et al, 89 Fla. 514, 105 So. R. 115, this Court says:
Mere inadvertence, or á bona fide mistake of judgment, in fixing a valuation for purposes of taxation, does not, in itself, amount in law to a fraud, and relief will not be granted by courts of equity solely upon the ground that the valuation is excessive, unless such valuation is so obviously and flagrantly excessive as to amount in law to a fraud and clearly imputes to the tax assessor an intention to arbitrarily discriminate against the complaining taxpayer. In instances of complaints founded solely upon a claim of excessive valuation resulting from a bona fide, but mistaken, exercise of judgment by the tax assessor, and unaffected by any obvious and palpable abuse of discretion or other element of illegality in matter of law, the remedy of the taxpayer is before the administrative body provided for the equalization of valuations and assessments.
In order for equity to take jurisdiction and grant relief against an ad valorem tax imposed upon real property, the case must be brought within some recognized principle of equity jurisdiction. A claim of excessive valuation alone, resulting solely from a bona fide, but mistaken exercise of judgment, the validity of the tax being affected by no other element of illegality in matter of law, and there being no intentional or other disregard of law or abuse of authority will not suffice as a ground of equitable jurisdiction, unless the valuation is so flagrantly and obviously excessive as, within itself to amount to a fraud and clearly imputes to the tax assessor an intention to arbitrarily discriminate against the complaining taxpayer. The complainant failed to make a case meeting the rule as enunciated in the opinion above referred to.
The complainant also failed to comply with Sec. 1038, Comp. Gen. Laws of Fla., 1927, being -Sec. 1 of Chap. 8586, Acts of 1921, in that it did not tender into court and file with the bill of complaint the full amount of the tax which it admitted was legally due by it. Nor did it file with the bill of complaint a receipt showing payment of the same prior to the institution of the suit. See also See. 2, Ch. 10023, Acts 1925, See. 1008 Comp. Gen. Laws 1927.
For the reasons stated the temporary restraining order should not have been granted, and, therefore, the order dissolving the temporary restraining order was without error and should be affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Affirmed.
Whitfield, P. J., and Strum, J., concur. Terrell, C. J., and Ellis and Brown, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Collins Inv. Co. v. Metro. Dade Cnty., 164 So. 2d 806 (Fla. 1964)…suit. Ranger Realty Co. v. Hefty, 112 Fla. 654, 152 So. 439; West Virginia Hotel Corporation v. W. C. Foster Co., 101 Fla. 1147, 132 So. 842; Adams v. Fielding, 148 Fla. 552, 4 So. 2d 678. Appellees rely principally upon Florida Land Co. v. Graham, 97 Fla. 476, 121 So. [*809] 462. This decision is not controlling. There the complaint itself was deemed insufficient and no tender at all was made, either with the complaint or when relief was sought. Similarly, in Buchanan v. City of Tampa, 134 Fla. 618, 184…
-
State v. Hickman, 189 So. 2d 254 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)…that the statute of limitations was not tolled •where the defendant failed to challenge the sufficiency of the warrant prior to the filing of the information(Emphasis supplied). The Supreme Court of Florida in Williams v. State, 1929, 97 Fla. 401, 121 So. 462, held that, where a Justice of the Peace has jurisdiction of the person accused and the subject matter of the charge (worthless check), and has the power to issue a warrant therefor, the person arrested thereunder has no right to be discharged on ha…
-
Roberts v. Dean, 133 Fla. 47 (Fla. 1938)…pplies to the case where a maker draws a worthless check, not having sufficient funds on deposit in the drawee bank. The party committing the crime contemplated by this section is the drawer or maker of the check. See Williams v. State, 97 Fla. 401, 121 So. 462, where it was held in habeas corpus-proceedings that a warrant substantially in the form advocated by Section 7, Chapter 8401, Acts of 1921, did not wholly fail to charge a crime under Section 1 of that Chapter (7922 C. G. L.). It' is unnecessary to…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- City of Tampa v. Palmer, 89 Fla. 514 (Fla. 1925)