MARK R. TENNANT, GEORGE A. CHALKER, JAMES E. BEARDSLEY, THAD H. CARLTON, AND H. L. LYONS, AS AND CONSTITUTING THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF EVERGLADES DRAINAGE DISTRICT, AND C. H. REEDER, SECRETARY, AND K. M. REEDER, TREASURER AND ASSISTANT SECRETARY THEREOF,
v.
UNITED STATES SUGAR CORPORATION
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.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed an injunction preventing the Everglades Drainage District from certifying certain lands for drainage tax collection, holding that while a prior mandamus writ required the Board to list the lands, the Board retained discretion to exempt non-taxable lands and could be controlled by proper legal process if that discretion was exercised improperly.
The Court affirmed the injunction, holding that while the mandamus writ required the Board to list the lands, it was not final; the Board retained discretion to exempt lands not subject to taxation and to hear objections, and this discretion could be controlled by proper legal process if exercised improperly. The foreclosure decree affected Everglades Drainage District taxes as if imposed under Chapter 10026, Acts of 1925, for 1938 and prior years.
“After making up and certifying the lists as the law requires, the Board of Commissioners of Everglades Drainage District is required to exempt all lands therefrom not subject to taxation and when advertised, they are required to sit and hear objections or complaints thereto and make such revision as to them seems advisable.”
Establishes that the Board's duty was not purely ministerial but included discretionary authority to exempt non-taxable lands and revise the tax roll after hearing objections.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Everglades Drainage District Board was required by mandamus to certify lands for drainage tax collection under Chapter 10026, Acts of 1925. Howeve…
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 Peremptory Writ Of Mandamus cases and more on FLexlaw
This appeal is from a final decree of the Circuit Court enjoining the Board of Commissioners of Everglades Drainage District from certifying certain lands therein described to the Tax Assessor of Palm Beach County to be listed on the tax roll for collection of drainage taxes for the years 1933, 1934, 1935, 1937 and 1938.
Appellants contend that the decree appealed from should be reversed because it has the effect of enjoining the execution of the peremptory writ of mandamus issued by this Court January 10, 1940, in the case of State ex rel. Neafie v. Board of Commissioners of Everglades Drainage District, 190 So. 712, wherein the identical lands for the years designated were required to be listed and published as a prerequisite to the collection of drainage taxes thereon as required by Section 1537, Compiled General Laws of 1927.
If the command of the peremptory writ had been final, there would be substance to this contention but that is not the case. After making up and certifying the lists as the law requires, the Board of Commissioners of Everglades Drainage District is required to exempt all lands therefrom not subject to taxation and when advertised, they are required to sit and hear objections or complaints thereto and make such revision as to them seems advisable. In this situation, the board had a discretion to exercise and if exercised improperly it could be controlled by proper legal process.
*538It appears that appellee had prosecuted to final decree a suit to foreclose certain tax certificates for nonpayment of State and county taxes, that said certificates described the identical lands involved in this case, that the Board of Commissioners of Everglades Drainage District was made a party defendant to said suit which is now pending on appeal to this Court, entitled H. C. Rorick, et al., v. Reconstruction Finance Corporation, et al.
By the final decree in the last cited cause which was not appealed from, the chancellor foreclosed and cancelled all taxes levied against the lands described in the certificates (they being the identical lands involved in this suit) for the year 1938 and prior years including Everglades Drainage District taxes. Appellant contends that said decree only reached Everglades Drainage District taxes which had actually been spread upon the tax rolls pursuant to Chapter 17902, Acts of 1937, which was held invalid in the Neafie case, supra. The Court further held in the Neafie case that the drainage taxes should have been imposed under Chapter 10026, Acts of 1925.
In our view, the final decree of foreclosure affected Everglades Drainage District taxes as if they had been imposed by Chapter 10026,Acts of 1925, for the year 1938 and prior years, since the taxes are levied direct by the Legislature and that the Board o.f Commissioners of Everglades Drainage District should now be permitted to amend their petition to participate in the surplus funds accordingly. Chapter 17902, Acts of 1937, having been held inapplicable is void from its inception and not from the time it was declared to be unconstitutional.
All other questions raised, including that of the status of State and county tax liens as compared with • Everglades Drainage tax liens that may be involved in this case are *539controlled by our opinion in H. C. Rorick, et al., v. Reconstruction Finance Corporation, decided this date.
Subject to such limitation as the last cited case imposes the judgment appealed from is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Whitfield, Buford, Chapman and'Thomas, J. J., concur.
Brown, J., concurs in the judgment of affirmance.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gill v. Livingston, 158 Fla. 577 (Fla. 1947)…erms and provisions.” His action in this respect is before us on cross-appeal by the defendants below (appellees here), and this question will be disposed of before entering upon a discussion of the original appeal. In Steen v. Scott, 144 Fla. 702, 198 So. 498, we held that a married woman owning property as her separate estate who accepted rent from a lessee for years was estopped to contend that the lease was invalid because of the failure of the notary to certify that the wife acknowledged execution of…
-
Rorick v. United States Sugar Corp., 120 F.2d 418 (5th Cir. 1941)…conceded that pending suit the plaintiffs have obtained a mandamus in the State courts to require the Board to certify to the tax officers for collection the back taxes and due certifications have been made. See Tennant v. United States Sugar Corp., 144 Fla. 536, 198 So. 498; State ex rel. Neafie v. Board of Commissioners, 144 Fla. 535, 198 So. 499. [*420] The Board of Commissioners in their motion to dismiss admit that the taxes are liens, but say the bondholders may not proceed to foreclose them, their re…
Authorities Cited
- State ex rel. Robert F. Neafie v. Bd. of Comm'rs of Everglades Drainage Dist., 139 Fla. 559 (Fla. 1939)