Interlachen Lakes Estates, Inc. v. Brooks

Citation341 So.2d 993
Decision Date09 December 1976
Docket NumberNo. 49347,49347
PartiesINTERLACHEN LAKES ESTATES, INC., and Norservice, Inc., Florida Corporation, Plaintiffs, v. Edward L. BROOKS (as substituted Defendant for Clinton R. Snyder) as Property Appraiser of Putnam County, Florida, Defendant.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Florida

Edward E. Hedstrom and Tito S. Smith of Dowda, Hedstrom & Fields, Palatka, for plaintiffs.

William L. Townsend, Jr. of Walton & Townsend, Palatka, for defendant.

PER CURIAM.

The Honorable W. L. Wadsworth, Circuit Judge, pursuant to Rule 4.6, Fla.App. Rules, has certified to this Court the following questions which are asserted to be determinative of this cause now pending before him, are without controlling precedent in this State and upon which instruction from the Supreme Court will facilitate the proper disposition of the cause:

'QUESTION I

WHETHER THE SUPREME COURT HAS AUTHORITY TO LEAVE SECTION 195.062, FLORIDA STATUTES, CONTROLLING FOR PENDING LITIGATION FOR THE TAX YEAR 1972 AFTER SAID STATUTE HAS BEEN DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

And, if Question I is answered in the affirmative:

QUESTION II

WHETHER THE PHRASE

'. . . platted lands . . . shall be valued for tax assessment purposes on the same basis as any unplatted acreage of similar character. . . .'

MEANS THAT THE UNPLATTED ACREAGE OF SIMILAR CHARACTER MUST BE:

A) SIMILAR IN FACT, i.e.:

1) LOTS SURVEYED BUT NOT RECORDED.

2) ROADS GRADED AND/OR PAVED.

3) UTILITIES AVAILABLE TO acreage of similar character . . .'

4) ACREAGE SUBJECT TO AN ACTIVE SALES PROGRAM.

OR

B) RAW ACREAGE, BEFORE ANY IMPROVEMENTS, HAVING THE SAME OR SIMILAR NATURAL TERRAIN FEATURES AND CHARACTERISTICS.'

The suit leading to these certified questions was originally filed by the plaintiffs to challenge the 1972 tax assessment on their lands in Putnam County, Florida. Plaintiffs' complaint alleged that the property appraiser had failed properly to apply the 'Rose law,' Section 195.062, Florida Statutes (1971). In his answer the appraiser alleged, inter alia, that the Rose law was unconstitutional. All parties stipulated that two questions concerning the law's constitutionality and one question relating to its application in the event it was held to be constitutional be submitted to the Supreme Court. Question I put in issue the validity of the Rose law under the provision of Article VII, Section 2, Florida Constitution of 1968; Question II raised the validity of such law under the provision of Article VII, Section 4, Florida Constitution of 1968; and Question III related to application of the law. This Court heard argument in 1973 and issued an opinion in September 1973, invalidating the statute as violative of Article VII, Section 4, Florida Constitution. Interlachen Lakes Estates, Inc. v. Snyder, 304 So.2d 433 (1973). A petition for rehearing was granted, and in December 1974, the Court adhered to its 1973 opinion without elaboration.

In the interim, two other suits attacking assessments on the same grounds were filed by plaintiffs for the tax years 1973 and 1974; by stipulation, these suits were continued pending the decision of this Court in the earlier case.

In Interlachen Lakes Estates, Inc. v. Snyder, supra, the Court held Questions I and III to be irrelevant by virtue of its affirmative response to Certified Question No. II; and, therefore, Questions I and III were not addressed. After remanding the case to the Circuit Court of Putnam County, this Court stated:

'This decision operates prospectively from the date the opinion becomes final because persons relying on the state statute did so assuming it to be valid despite the new provisions of the 1968 State Constitution. . . .'

On remand defendants moved for summary judgment, alleging that a statute ruled unconstitutional is a nullity and cannot be given life by a 'prospective' invalidation. Prior to hearing, the defendants suggested recertification, in which the Court concurred, and hence the matter is once again before us. 1

We find it unnecessary to respond to either of the questions...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Department of Revenue v. Kuhnlein
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • September 29, 1994
    ...See Interlachen Lakes Estates, Inc. v. In the context of declaratory judgment actions, we have reiterated much the same rule: Brooks, 341 So.2d 993 (Fla.1976). Put another way, the parties must not be requesting an advisory opinion, id., except in those rare instances in which advisory opin......
  • Donovan v. Okaloosa Cnty.
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • March 5, 2012
    ...LaBella v. Food Fair, Inc., 406 So.2d 1216, 1217 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (internal quotation marks omitted))); Interlachen Lakes Estates, Inc. v. Brooks, 341 So.2d 993, 995 (Fla.1976). 3. That the County in 2009 used a different procedure in adopting an amended and restated assessment resolution......
  • Ferreiro v. Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • March 8, 2006
    ...exist" will be dismissed as "moot"). Put another way, the parties must not be requesting an advisory opinion, Interlachen Lakes Estates, Inc. v. Brooks, 341 So.2d 993, 995 (1976), except in those rare instances in which advisory opinions are authorized. E.g., Art. IV, § 1(c), Fla. Const. (a......
  • Olive v. Maas
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • February 14, 2002
    ...as to the issue or issues presented." Dep't of Revenue v. Kuhnlein, 646 So.2d 717, 720-21 (Fla.1994) (citing Interlachen Lakes Estates, Inc. v. Brooks, 341 So.2d 993 (Fla.1976)). Without such standing, parties are prohibited from requesting advisory opinions, "except in those rare instances......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT