CHAVES CONSTRUCTION COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES, APPELLANT,
v.
METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, ET AL., 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.
Chaves Construction Company appealed a dismissal of its challenge to a 1970 intangible tax assessment, arguing the 60-day statutory limitation on tax assessment suits did not apply to intangible property taxes. The Florida appellate court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the statutory 60-day limitation applies to all tax assessments, including intangible property, and that allegations of excessive valuation and procedural defects do not constitute claims that an assessment is illegal and void.
The court held that Fla. Stat. § 194.151 applies to intangible tax assessments as a jurisdictional requirement. The court also held that allegations of excessive valuation and procedural improprieties are insufficient to establish that an assessment is illegal and void, and thus do not exempt a challenge from the 60-day limitation.
[1] A suit challenging a tax assessment must be instituted within sixty days from the certification of the assessment roll to avoid dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.
[2] The sixty-day limitation for challenging tax assessments applies to intangible tax assessments.
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 assessment shall be held invalid unless suit is instituted within sixty days from the time the assessments roll is certified.”
The statutory language establishing the 60-day limitation period that the court applied to intangible tax assessments.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceChaves Construction Company filed suit to challenge its 1970 intangible tax assessment more than 60 days after the tax assessment roll was certified. …
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 Intangible Tax cases and more on FLexlaw
Plaintiff appeals from an order which dismissed, with prejudice, its complaint challenging its 1970 intangible tax assessment. The trial court found this suit was instituted more than sixty days after the tax assessment roll was certified and that it lacked jurisdiction pursuant to Fla.Stat. § 194.151, F.S.A., which provides:
“No assessment shall be held invalid unless suit is instituted within sixty days from the time the assessments roll is certified. . . . ”
Plaintiff argues this statute does not apply to the intangible tax roll. It has been held under a prior statute with almost the same wording that a 60 day limitation for suit was a jurisdictional requirement in a case challenging 1961 real and personal property tax assessments. See Henry v. County of Dade, Fla.App.1963, 149 So.2d 89; and Harvey W. Seeds Post No. 29, American Legion v. Dade County, Fla.App.1970, 230 So.2d 696.
The statutes require assessments for intangible personal property to be on a separate tax roll [§ 199.071, Fla.Stat., F.S.A.]; that the assessments for tangible personal property be on a separate tax roll [§ 199.-041, Fla.Stat., F.S.A.]; that the county assessor complete the assessment rolls on or before July 1 of each year [§ 194.011(1), Fla.Stat., F.S.A.] ; and the assessor must present each of the assessment rolls on the 3rd Monday in July. § 194.031(1), Fla. Stat.
We are of the view and so hold that § 194.151, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., applies to intangible tax assessments and find no error under this point.
Plaintiff argues if § 194.151, Fla.Stat, F.S.A. applies to intangible tax rolls it should not apply here because the 60 day limitation is not proper in suits where the assessments are alleged to be unauthorized and void. See Hansen v. Port Everglades Steel Corporation, Fla.App.1963, 155 So.2d 387; and cases cited therein.
A review of the complaint indicates plaintiffs essentially alleged the valuation of its class “B” intangibles to be improper and excessive; that the tax assessor had acted improperly in giving it notice; and that it had been denied a full and fair hearing before the Board of Tax Adjustment. It admitted a dollar sum certain to be a just valuation of its class “B” intangibles *547for 1970 and prayed the court determine that any assessment in excess thereof be declared illegal and void.
We hold the allegations that the assessment was excessive and that certain administrative procedures were improper were not sufficient allegations that the assessment was illegal and void. See Hackney v. McKenney, 113 Fla. 176, 151 So. 524 (1933); and Hansen v. Port Everglades, supra.
The final order of dismissal is
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Hackney v. McKenny, 113 Fla. 176 (Fla. 1933)
- Hansen v. Port Everglades Steel Corp., 155 So. 2d 387 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)
- Henry v. Cnty. OF Dade, 149 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)
- Harvey W. Seeds Post NO. 29 v. Dade Cnty., 230 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)