Armstrong v. State ex rel. Beaty
| Decision Date | 08 January 1954 |
| Parties | ARMSTRONG v. STATE ex rel. BEATY et al. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
R. E. Cowart, Madison, for appellant.
Davis, Davis & McClure, David Lanier and R. C. Horne, Madison, for appellees.
This controversy arose between the Board of County Commissioners and the County Assessor of Taxes in Madison County.
The County Assessor of Taxes, in compliance with the law, finished his tax assessment roll for the year 1953 and submitted the same to the Board of County Commissioners as a tax equalization board. Pursuant to notice, duly published as required by law, the Board of County Commissioners met for the purpose of hearing and receiving complaints and testimony as to the value of 'any property * * * as fixed by the said County Assessor of Taxes, and of perfecting, reviewing and equalizing the assessment'. Section 193.25, F.S.A. The law further provides that the County Commissioners may continue in session from day to day as long as shall be necessary. The same section provides that the Board of County Commissioners shall meet for the purpose of hearing complaints from 'owners or agents of any real estate * * * the value of which shall have been fixed by the assessor, or changed by them'.
Pursuant to law, the Board of County Commissioners met for the purposes as stated with the County Assessor of Taxes. The minute entry of the first meeting of the Board of County Commissioners shows that at said meeting 'Complaints of a general nature were verbally made.' The Board then recessed until 8:00 o'clock P.M., July 6, for the purpose of hearing additional complaints. The minute entry of the Board of County Commissioners with reference to the meeting of July 6, 1953, was that another meeting should be called on July 13, 1953 for the meeting pose. The minute entry for the meeting of July 13, showed several taxpayers appearing to register 'a general complaint as to the increase in valuation of the whole roll and asked for relief.' The minutes of the meetings of the Board of County Commissioners and the resolutions passed show clearly that the complaints made were with reference to the entire roll and of all of the taxable property in the county and were of a general nature and that no complaints were shown by any individual taxpayer as to his particular property in question. In other words, we fail to find in the record any complaint from any taxpayer that his property was over-assessed with reference to the tax roll for the entire county or in comparison with any other property in the county. If any particular piece of property shown on the tax roll was assessed too high in comparison with any other property in the county, no complaint of that nature is shown by this record.
The Board of County Commissioners adopted a resolution ordering that the assessed value of real property appearing on the rolls for 1953 be reduced and lowered to the figures appearing on the 1952 Tax Roll 'severally for each corresponding piece of property thereon' and thereupon ordered and directed the Tax Assessor to extend on the 1953 Roll the corresponding value of each piece of real property severally as the same appears assessed and determined on the 1952 tax roll. The Tax Assessor refused to comply with the orders of the County Commissioners and this suit resulted.
Petition for mandamus was filed, alternative writ issued, the pleadings were settled and the Court in an exhaustive opinion granted peremptory writ notwithstanding the return. This appeal was taken from that order.
Chapter 193, F.S.A., and particularly, Section 193.25, F.S.A., in connection with Section 5, Article IX of the State Constitution, F.S.A., are controlling in this case. Section 5, Article IX of the State Constitution, provides that the Legislature shall authorize the 'several counties * * * in the State to assess and impose taxes for county * * * purposes, and for no other purposes, and all property shall be taxed upon the principles established for State taxation.' Section 1 of Article IX of the State Constitution provides, with reference to state taxation, that 'The Legislature shall provide for a uniform and equal rate of taxation'. In other words, when the state taxation is involved, taxation shall be uniform throughout the state and when county taxation is involved, it must be uniform throughout the county.
Section 6 of Article VIII of the State Constitution provides for a County Assessor of Taxes, and that his powers and duties shall be prescribed by law. Chapter 193, F.S.A., provides the powers and duties of the County Assessor of Taxes. He is required to make a personal inspection, unless he is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lanier v. Tyson
...General Life Ins. Co., 1942, 151 Fla. 96, 9 So.2d 197. However, see the language appearing as dictum in Armstrong v. State ex rel. Beaty, Fla.1954, 69 So.2d 319 at 321, wherein the Court stated: '* * * We still have the principle that the method of assessment shall be equal and uniform for ......
-
Hillsborough County v. Kortum
...be presumed that the property appraiser followed the statutes and rules and considered all relevant factors. See Armstrong v. State ex rel. Beaty, 69 So.2d 319, 321 (Fla.1954). The record also does not contain evidence that the Kortums ever filed a petition for review of their tax As to the......
-
Dick v. State ex rel. Harris, 3933
...general raising or lowering of the assessment of property in order to constitute a general reassessment, as was the case in Armstrong v. State, Fla.1954, 69 So.2d 319. The actions of the Board were in accordance with the general principles approved in Sanders v. Crapps, Fla.1950, 45 So.2d 4......
-
Stiles v. Brown, 34617
...any such valuation. Such boards have no power or authority to make blanket increases or decreases, but only to equalize. Armstrong v. State, 69 So.2d 319, text 321, 322 (Fla.). See also Sanders v. Crapps, 45 So.2d 484 (Fla.), and Hoffman v. Land, 55 So.2d 806 In Tyson v. Lanier, 156 So.2d 8......