CLARANCE A. RUDISILL AND HELEN RUDISILL, HIS WIFE,
v.
CITY OF TAMPA, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, ORGANIZED AND EXISTING UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA; T. C. KELLER, AS TAX COLLECTOR OF THE SAID CITY OF TAMPA; ANTHONY H. SCHLEMAN, AS TAX COLLECTOR OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
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 upheld a 30-day statutory deadline for challenging real estate tax assessments, rejecting a property owner's claim that an assessment was fraudulently excessive and that the deadline violated due process. The court held that the legislature's power to ensure prompt tax collection and the availability of administrative remedies satisfy constitutional requirements.
The statutory thirty-day deadline for challenging tax assessments is valid and constitutional. A plaintiff cannot maintain a suit to enjoin an assessment after the thirty-day period has elapsed, even on grounds of fraudulent or excessive assessment. The legislature has authority to establish such a deadline to ensure prompt tax collection, and the deadline does not deprive property owners of due process.
“It is indispensable to government that taxes be assessed and collected. The legislature is charged with the duty of providing a uniform and equal rate of taxation.”
Establishes the fundamental governmental interest in prompt tax assessment and collection that justifies the statutory deadline.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Rudisills sought to enjoin a real estate tax assessment on the ground that it was so grossly excessive as to constitute fraudulent assessment. The…
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.
This case is before the Court on certificate under Rule 38 of this Court. The question certified is:
“Can a Plaintiff maintain a suit to enjoin a real estate tax assessment as so flagrantly and obviously excessive, per se as to amount to a legal fraud where the suit was instituted more than thirty days after the assessment became final, in view of Section 1, Chapter 20722, Laws of Florida, Acts of 1941, providing ‘. . . and no assessment shall be held'invalid unless suit be instituted within thirty days from the time the assessment shall become final, . . .’ ?”
Certified to us with this question, is copy of bill of complaint with motion to dismiss same. The purpose of the bill is to contest the legality of a tax on the ground that same is so grossly excessive as to constitute a fraudulent assessment.
Plaintiff contends that part of Section 1 of Chapter 20722, General Laws of 1941, “. . . and no assessment shall be held invalid unless suit be instituted within thirty days from the time the assessment shall become final, ...” is void because: First, the title of the Act does not meet the requirements of Section 16, Article III of the Florida Constitution. Second, the limited period of thirty days deprives him of due process.
The title of the Act is sufficient to meet the requirements of Section 16, Article III.
Section 5 of the Act contemplates that the assessment shall be final when the original roll is delivered to the Collector and copies are delivered to the Clerk and Comptroller.
Property owners are obliged to know that their property is liable for taxes. Property owners are af*286forded a method by law to appear before administrative officers and obtain a fair and just assessment of their property.
It is indispensable to government that taxes be assessed and collected. The legislature is charged with the duty of providing a uniform and equal rate of taxation. Section 1, Article IX, Florida Constitution. The legislature is necessarily vested with power to enact necessary laws to secure a prompt collection of the annual tax. In the exercise of such powers they must not invade the constitutional rights of the property owner. Provision is made here however, for the owner to make return of his property and value same for taxation. He has further remedy to petition the equalization board for appropriate relief. He is allowed a minimum of thirty days from the final act of the administrative officers to resort to the courts if he feels aggrieved by the administrative taxing authorities. While the time may appear relatively short, nevertheless it cannot be said that the time fixed by the Legislature is so unreasonable as to amount to depriving him of his property without due process.
The legislature perhaps realized that unless the assessment was made final within a relatively short period of time the collection would be impaired thereby resulting in further inequalities in the burdens of taxpayers to sustain the cost of government.
The lower court is therefore advised that the Act in question is valid and the question is answered in the negative.
So ordered.
BROWN, C. J., WHITFIELD, TERRELL, BUFORD, CHAPMAN and THOMAS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
Collins Inv. Co. v. Metro. Dade Cnty., 164 So. 2d 806 (Fla. 1964)…So. 2d 677; Thompson v. City of Key West, Fla. 1955, 82 So. 2d 749; Dade County v. DuPont Plaza, Fla.App., 117 So. 2d 849, quashed on other grounds, Fla., 125 So. 2d 564, opinion conformed, Fla.App., 128 So. 2d 151; Rudisill et ux. v. City of Tampa, 151 Fla. 284, 9 So. 2d 380. Section 196.01, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., originated as Chapter 8586, Laws of Florida 1921. Prior to that time this Court had applied Article IX, Section 8, supra, as requiring a complaining taxpayer to make a deposit of the amount l…
-
The Deltona Corp. v. Bailey, 336 So. 2d 1163 (Fla. 1976)…ablished before the Board of Tax Adjustment failed to comply with the [*1169] statutory requirements for such notice and review. The statutory time periods have withstood due process challenge on a number of occasions. See Rudisill v. City of Tampa, 151 Fla. 284, 9 So. 2d 380 (1942); Dade County v. Dupont Plaza, Inc., 117 So. 2d 849 (3d D.C.A.Fla.), rev’d on other grounds, 125 So. 2d 564 (Fla.1960). Delto-na’s complaint actually seems to be grounded on the fact that the quantity of real estate owned by the…
-
Chatlos v. Earnest Overstreet, 124 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1960)…trial. .We are conscious of our duty to interpret a legislative act so as to effect a constitutional result if it is possible to do so. With this in mind we have examined the construction of F.S. Sec. 192.21, F.S. A., in Rudisill v. City of Tampa, 151 Fla. 284, 9 So. 2d 380; Thompson v. City of Key West, Fla., 82 So. 2d 749; Nash v. Merritt Island Lumber Co., Fla.App., 110 So. 2d 677, which hold that no suit can be instituted after the expiration of the sixty day period. It is of course within the legisla…
Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence