R. R. WALDEN, AS TAX ASSESSOR OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, APPELLANT,
v.
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA FOUNDATION, HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, AND K. C. BULLARD, AS TAX COLLECTOR OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA, APPELLEES; DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE FOR THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT, V. UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA FOUNDATION, HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, AND K. C. BULLARD, AS TAX COLLECTOR OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA, 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.
This case concerns whether property owned by the University of South Florida Foundation is exempt from ad valorem taxation. The court affirmed the exemption for property adjacent to the university campus but reversed and remanded for further consideration of a parcel with an orange grove.
The court held that the property adjacent to the university campus was correctly deemed exempt from taxation. However, the court held that the statute regarding predominant use should have been applied to the parcel containing the orange grove, rather than severing the grove entirely.
[1] Property owned by a foundation and used exclusively for educational purposes is exempt from ad valorem taxation.
[2] When a parcel of land includes both property used for an exempt purpose and property used for a nonexempt purpose, the nonexempt portion may be severed for taxation purpo…
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“We conclude that the trial court was eminently correct as to this parcel and the final summary judgment as to this parcel is affirmed.”
Establishes the court's agreement with the trial court's decision regarding the first parcel of property.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe University of South Florida Foundation owned two parcels of property. One parcel, adjacent to the university, was improved with apartment building…
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 Ad Valorem Taxation cases and more on FLexlaw
HOBSON, Judge.
This appeal is from a final summary judgment wherein the trial court held that the appellee, University of South Florida Foundation, was an educational institution within the purview of Chapter 196, Florida Statutes. The Foundation owned two parcels of property, one of which was immediately adjacent to the University of South Florida campus and improved by two 2-story apartment buildings. As to this par cel the trial court held that it was totally exempt from ad valorem taxation because it was used exclusively for an exempt purpose, to wit, educational. We conclude that the trial court was eminently correct as to this parcel and the final summary judgment as to this parcel is affirmed.
The other parcel was approximately 30 acres situated on Lake Thonotosassa. Included in this parcel was a five-acre orange grove from which the Foundation received approximately $200 a year from the sale of the citrus fruit. The trial court held that the orange grove should be severed from the remaining property as it was not used for educational purposes. He further held that the remaining property was exclusively used for educational purposes and, therefore, was exempt from ad valorem taxation. After severing the orange grove the trial court held that the Foundation was liable for ad valorem taxes on the five-acre grove.
Florida Statute 196.192 states:
“All property used predominantly for exempt purposes shall be exempted from ad valorem taxation to the extent of the ratio that such predominant use bears to the nonexempt use.”
The Lake Thonotosassa property being one tract of land which included the orange grove, the trial court should have applied the above statute as to the predominant use and determined the ratio that such predominant use bears to the nonexempt use.
We have carefully considered the other points on appeal and cross appeal and find them to be without merit.
For the foregoing reasons the final summary judgment is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
McNULTY, C. J., and BOARDMAN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Saint Andrew's Sch. OF Boca Raton v. Walker, 540 So. 2d 207 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)…nevertheless, came within the provision of chapter 196 in a “broader sense.” See also Walden v. University of Tampa, Inc., 304 So. 2d 134 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974), cert. denied, 315 So. 2d 476 (Fla.1975); Walden v. University of South Florida Foundation, 328 So. 2d 460 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert. denied, 336 So. 2d 605 (Fla.1976). In Berkeley, the court noted: The property was purchased by the school for use as a headmaster’s residence, and the headmaster is required to live there. But, the property is also used for co…