F. M. FISHER, AS TAX ASSESSOR OF SANTA ROSA COUNTY, ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
AIR PRODUCTS AND CHEMICALS, INC., 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.
Tax assessor appeals denial of motion for judgment on the pleadings in a property tax assessment dispute. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial without reaching the merits, holding only that the motion was properly denied as a matter of procedure.
The trial court did not err in denying the motion for judgment on the pleadings. The appellate court's affirmance expresses no opinion on whether the taxpayer is ultimately entitled to relief on the merits.
[1] A motion for judgment on the pleadings is properly denied when the complaint alleges facts sufficient to state a cause of action.
[2] Allegations that a property assessment was arrived at by applying different criteria than those applied to other taxpayers, and that the valuation is arbitrary, unreasona…
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 intelligence“Our affirmance here of the order appealed is not intended to be construed as expression of an opinion as to whether appellee is or is not ultimately entitled to relief upon being heard on the merits of its complaint.”
Establishes that the court's affirmance is limited to the procedural ruling and does not address the substantive merits of the tax assessment challenge.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAir Products and Chemicals, Inc. returned its property for calendar year 1972 with a value of $13,042,934.00. The Santa Rosa County assessor assessed …
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 Property Tax Assessment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
By this Interlocutory Appeal, appellant seeks reversal of an order of the trial judge denying appellants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings in a case wherein appellee filed a complaint challenging the assessment of appellee’s property for the calendar year 1972. The complaint alleged that appellee returned its property during the subject year at the value of $13,-042,934.00 but that “assessor made and entered upon the assessment books as of January 1, 1972, a total assessed valuation of plaintiff’s real and personal property (with additions) of $21,730,957.00.” The complaint further alleged that “The assessment value thereof has been arrived at by Assessor by the application of criteria different from that applied to other taxpayers of the county, and the value as fixed by Assessor for the year 1972 is arbitrary, unreasonable and grossly excessive and constitutes an illegal and invalid valuation of the property.”
Our affirmance here of the order appealed is not intended to be construed as expression of an opinion as to whether appellee is or is not ultimately entitled to relief upon being heard on the merits of its complaint. We here only hold that the learned trial judge did not err when he denied appellants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings. (See West Virginia Hotel Corporation v. W. C. Foster Company, Sup.Ct.Fla. 1931, 101 Fla. 1147, 132 So. 842 and Graham v. City of West Tampa, Sup. Ct.Fla.1916, 71 Fla. 605, 71 So. 926.)
In addition to the many cases cited in appellants’ brief,1 appellants have called to our attention a recent case of our sister court of the Third District, Dade County v. Transportes Aereos Nacionales, S.A., Fla.App. 3rd 1974, 298 So. 2d 570. We find, however, that that case, like the others cited by appellants, is not controlling here.
Affirmed.
BOYER, Acting Q J., JOHNSON, J., and SPECTOR, SAM, Associate Judge, Retired, concur. . Dickinson v. Davis, Sup.Ct.Fla.1969, 224 So. 2d 262; Stiles v. Brown, Sup.Ct.Fla.1966, 182 So. 2d 612; Marx v. Welch, Fla.App.3rd 1965, 178 So. 2d 737; and Harvey W. Seeds Post No. 29, American Legion, Department of Florida v. Dade County, Fla.App.3rd 1970, 230 So. 2d 696.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- W. Va. Hotel Corp. v. W. C. Foster Co., 132 So. 842 (Fla. 1931)
- Graham v. City of W. Tampa, 71 Fla. 605 (Fla. 1916)
- Dickinson v. Thornton Davis, 224 So. 2d 262 (Fla. 1969)
- In re Edward R. Rhynard. Petition for Reinstatement to The Florida Bar, 182 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 1966)
- Harvey W. Seeds Post NO. 29 v. Dade Cnty., 230 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)
- Marx v. Hoke Welch, 178 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Dade Cnty. v. Transportes Aereos Nacionales, 298 So. 2d 570 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)