WILLIAM MARKHAM, AS TAX ASSESSOR OF BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
SHERWOOD PARK LTD. INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND SHERWOOD FOREST LTD., INC., OF HOLLYWOOD, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS
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.
A building ready for occupancy, except for minor finishing touches, is considered substantially complete for tax purposes. The legislature intended not to tax property as improved unless it's usable for its intended purpose.
[1] A building is considered substantially complete for tax purposes when it is ready for occupancy, even if minor finishing touches remain.
[2] Occupancy of a building, or a significant portion thereof, creates a presumption of substantial completion for tax purposes, notwithstanding the need for additional labor…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe case involves the interpretation of a Florida statute concerning when a building is considered 'substantially completed' for property tax assessme…
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 Legislative Intent cases and more on FLexlaw
This case 1 has been certified to us by the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, to be one which passes upon a question of great public interest.2 The question certified to be of great public interest is not stated in the certificate as we have suggested it should be, but it clearly appears from the decision that it relates to the construction of Sec. 193.11(4), F.S.1967, F.S.A., and is substantially the same question as that certified to this Court in Culbertson .v. Seacoast Towers East, Inc.3 by the District Court of Appeal, Third District.
The District Court, Third District, in Seacoast Towers, held:
“Generally, a building ready for occupancy, except for certain finishing touches necessary for final completion would be deemed substantially complete. * * * Where a building, or a large part of it has been occupied, although additional labor and materials may be necessary for final completion, it may be presumed to be substantially completed. * * *»
*130In the case now here on certificate from the Fourth District, that Court held:
“We construe that it was the intent of the legislature not to tax the property other than as unimproved unless it was complete to the point where it could be used for the purposes intended. * * * ”
The decision of this Court in Seacoast, decided while this case was pending here, supra note 3, approved the above quoted holding of the Third District Court and is dispositive of the question presented here. The two rulings are — consistent.
The decision of the District Court, Fourth District, is therefore approved and is adopted as the opinion of this Court.
It is so ordered.
ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON and BOYD, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Markham v. Yankee Clipper Hotel, Inc., 427 So. 2d 383 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)…1982). Second, the subject statute is constitutional, as Culbertson so held regarding an earlier statute.3 See also Sherwood Park [*385] Ltd. v. Meeks, 234 So. 2d 702 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970), approved and adopted sub nom. Markham v. Sherwood Park Ltd., 244 So. 2d 129 (Fla.1971). The legislature’s determination that an incomplete structure, unusable for the purposes intended upon its completion, should not be assessed in that condition is a matter of perception. To this court it appears as a choice based on reaso…
-
Markham v. Leonard L. Farber Co., Inc., 277 So. 2d 850 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)…that the judgment of the trial court is supported by competent substantial evidence and is consistent with the criteria and rationale set forth in Sherwood Park, Ltd. v. Meeks, Fla.App. 1970, 234 So. 2d 702; Markham v. Sherwood Park, Ltd., Fla.1971, 244 So. 2d 129, and Atty. General’s Opinion 061-178, Biennial Report of the Attorney General June 1961— 2, page 301, prepared by then Attorney General Honorable Richard Ervin. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. WALDEN, CROSS, and MAGER, JJ…
-
Hollywood Park Apts. S., LLC v. City of Hollywood (Fla. 4th DCA 2023)…1st DCA 1984); see also Sherwood Park, Ltd. v. Meeks, 234 So. 2d 702, 703 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970) (reversing where “tax assessor was not authorized to promulgate a formula in derogation to the statute”), approved sub nom. Markham v. Sherwood Park Ltd., 244 So. 2d 129 (Fla. 1971). In summary, we find that the trial court did not err in finding that the 2014 ordinance was the operative ordinance. We also find, however, that the trial court erred by utilizing the city’s method of determining the average monthly u…
Authorities Cited
- Culbertson v. Seacoast Towers E., Inc., 236 So. 2d 761 (Fla. 1970)
- City OF Hallandale v. Wiliam F. Chatlos, 236 So. 2d 761 (Fla. 1970)
- Sherwood Park, Ltd., Inc. v. Meeks, 234 So. 2d 702 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970)