Baldwin Drainage Dist. v. MacClenny Turpentine Co.

• Decision Date: 04 April 1944
• Citation: 18 So.2d 792,154 Fla. 525
• Parties: BALDWIN DRAINAGE DIST. et al. v. MacCLENNY TURPENTINE CO. et al.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

18 So.2d 792

154 Fla. 525

BALDWIN DRAINAGE DIST. et al. v. MacCLENNY TURPENTINE CO. et al.

Florida Supreme Court

April 4, 1944

On Rehearing Aug. 1, 1944.

Giles J. Patterson and John W. Harrell, both of Jacksonville, for petitioners.

Thos. B Adams, of Jacksonville, for respondents.

Thos. McE. Johnston, of Miami, amicus curiae.

THOMAS, Justice.

In this appeal presented by certiorari, we are asked to test the propriety of the chancellor's order denying motions to dismiss the bill of complaint and to strike certain sections of that pleading. Our first task is an analysis of the bill, which is of considerable length.

The plaintiffs are owners of property or holders of liens on property situated within Baldwin Drainage District which 'claims to be a public corporation * * * by virtue of a * * * Decree entered [by the circuit judge] * * * on the 19th day of January, A. D. 1916 * * *.' This decree 'described the outside boundaries of three whole townships, * * * but described no properties nor the ownerships thereof within said boundaries * * * except * * * certain railroad properties * * * expressly excluded * * *.' Defendants were the drainage district, its supervisors, and the holders of its bonds.

Appellees acquired title in various ways to the respective pieces of property involved, some of it by conveyances from the grantees in tax deeds executed as early as 1929 and as late as 1937, some through persons who were owners at the time the drainage district was created, some through masters' deeds executed pursuant to mortgage foreclosure, and on still other parcels tax certificates are held.

After the creation of the district and at a time when Sec. 22, Chapter 6458 Laws of Florida, Acts of 1913, was in effect the then supervisors authorized three bond issues. In the first one for $300,000, the 'Drainage Tax Record' was certified and filed October 30, 1916; in the second, for $150,000, this record was filed March 11, 1920; and in the third, for $110,000, it was filed August 31, 1921. To each of these records was attached a certificate, in accordance with Sec. 22 of Chapter 6458, supra, that the taxes defined therein and to be levied in the future were a lien subject only to the lien of the state for general, county, school, and road taxes. It was alleged that during the existence of the drainage district the lands of the plaintiffs had become parts of special road and bridge and tax school districts, and taxes had been levied on them for general purposes and the service of bonds issued by counties and districts. It was charged that issuance of 'tax deeds pro tanto discharged and cancelled the [bond issues] * * * whether * * * valid or invalid,' or, as it is otherwise stated in the bill: 'That in any event the grantees * * * through whom * * * plaintiffs * * * claim * * * received independent titles from the State * * * wholly unaffected by anything done or omitted * * * by any of the former owners of said lands.'

The theory of the bill to this point was that, as far as lands held under tax deeds were concerned, the issuance of tax deeds created an independent title from the State of Florida free of all liens for debt service or maintenance purposes and if that position be not sustained then the owners under those instruments were privileged to attack the validity of all levies for drainage regardless of any position assumed by the former owners of the legal title.

We pause here to determine the first proposition, namely, whether title of property acquired by tax deed was unencumbered by the lien of taxes levied for maintenance of the drainage system and payment of bonds which had been issued to install it. It is the contention of the appellees that the tax certificates were issued evidencing levies for general tax purposes prior to the enactment of Chapter 12040, Laws of Florida, Acts of 1927, F.S.A. §§ 298.36, 298.41, 298.47 to 298.51, and at a time when Chapter 6458, Laws of Florida, Acts of 1913, was in force. Section 22 of the latter provided that 'all drainage taxes provided for in this Act * * * shall, from the date of assessment thereof until paid, constitute a lien, to which only the lien of the State for general State, County, school and road taxes shall beparamount' and required that the certificate of the drainage tax lien should contain a declaration to like effect. In the amendatory act, Chapter 12040, supra, it was provided that the drainage taxes should 'constitute a lien ofequal dignity with the liens for State and County taxes * * *.' F.S.A. § 298.41. (Italics supplied.)

It is the gist of the appellees' argument, then, that until the effective date of this law state and county taxes were superior to drainage taxes, and deeds based on certificates issued for nonpayment obliterated the inferior liens of the drainage taxes.

In reply to this argument the appellants assert that the rights of the purchaser of the tax certificate are those defined by the law in force at the time it is acquired. Clark-Ray-Johnson Company v. Williford, 62 Fla. 453, 56 So. 938. Assuming, as we may, that the tax certificates forming the bases of the deeds described in the bill were purchased at or about the time the deeds issued it seems to us that this principle of law announced in the cited case governs. The rule has lately been reiterated in Culmer et al. v. Office Realty Company, 137 Fla. 675, 189 So. 52. We have the view that tax certificates purchased subsequent to the amendatory act evidenced liens of equal dignity to those taxes levied for maintenance purposes and to retire bonds issued for the construction of the district. Being of equal dignity with taxes levied for state and county purposes they were not cancelled by the sale of property for state taxes and issuance of certificates therefor. Bice v. Haines City et al., 142 Fla. 371, 195 So. 919; Carlile v. Melbourne-Tillman Drainage Dist. et al., 143 Fla. 355, 196 So. 687.

On the second phase of this attack, the plaintiffs' position that if the court should hold the tax liens of equal force all the plaintiffs might challenge the incorporation and existence of the district, much is alleged. Before enumerating the defects claimed, of which plaintiffs insist they may take advantage, it is well to emphasize that this district was created in 1916, approximately 27 years before the bill of complaint was filed. It was averred that: (1) neither the published notice of application to form the district nor the decree contained the names of property owners except two railroad companies, properties of which were excluded; (2) the descriptions of the various properties were not incorporated; (3) no schedule of lands was attached to the notice; (4) the court exceeded its jurisdiction because the lands within the boundaries described in the decree 'were not a contiguous body of wet or overflowed lands or lands subject to overflow within the meaning and intent of [the] General Drainage Law'; (5) the lands within the limits defined constituted four distinct water sheds so independent of one another that four systems would have been necessary to accomplish effective drainage; (6) the money was 'wasted or spent' on property in certain areas which could have resulted in no possible benefit to lands of the plaintiffs, a waste and expense attributable to the illegal construction contracts, alteration of plans of reclamation, and the like; (7) plaintiffs were not parties to the petition to incorporate the district--obviously they could not have been, as they obtained their property long afterward--and those who had signed the petition were laymen unfamiliar with the law and the physical characteristics of the proposed district; (8) the court had no jurisdiction to enter the decree confirming assessments of benefits because the notice of filing the commissioners' report did not contain a schedule of the lands affected by it; (9) there was no basis for an order confirming assessments of benefits for the reason that the commissioners failed to inspect the property and instead arrived at benefits by 'an arbitrary formula' relying upon information furnished in the plan of reclamation of the engineers, which was theoretical rather than practical; (10) the commissioners could not have performed their duties because of the short period of time between their qualification and the filing of the report, the existence of only one highway through the area, and the federal weather report for August, 1916, having shown that immediately preceding the filing of the report there was an excessive rainfall which affected swamp areas such as then existed in the district in considerable numbers; (11) the commissioners' estimates were ipse dixit without sufficient consideration to the benefits which individual units in the district would receive; (12) the district generally has not been benefitted by the drainage plan and there has been no appreciable difference in the value of the land within and the land surrounding it; (13) the assessments of benefits bore no relationship to costs.

At the outset we referred to the drainage tax records filed in connection with the bond issues. These are claimed to have been defective because (1) descriptions of lands situated in only one county (Duval) were given and (2) these records were vitiated by the imperfections in the decrees which have already been given.

The certificates of the officers of the district forming the bases for the collection of taxes from 1916 to 1923 were alleged to have been false because the decree organizing the district did not contain the names of the owners nor the descriptions of the lands, and the levies invalid for these reasons. Such certificates in subsequent years were said to have been false also because 'the lists of lands...