Bearden v. Metropolitan Dade County

• Citation: 258 So.2d 344
• Decision Date: 22 February 1972
• Docket Number: No. 71--518,71--518
• Parties: Ralph H. BEARDEN, Jr., Appellant, v. METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, Florida, Appellee.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Florida (US)

Page 344

258 So.2d 344

Ralph H. BEARDEN, Jr., Appellant, v. METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, Florida, Appellee.

No. 71--518.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 22, 1972.

Rehearing Denied March 8, 1972.

Ralph H. Bearden, Jr., Miami, in pro. per.

Stuart L. Simon, County Atty., and St. Julien P. Rosemond, Asst. County Atty., for appellee.

Before SWANN, C.J., and CHARLES CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant Ralph H. Bearden, Jr., filed a class action challenging the validity of Ordinance No. 70--27 of Metropolitan Dade County, which imposed an excise tax on purchases of designated utility services in the unincorporated area of Dade County. Pertinent provisions thereof were:

'There is hereby levied and imposed by the county upon every purchase in the unincorporated area of electricity, metered gas, bottled gas, fuel oil, telephone service, and water service, included in or reflected by any bill rendered by the seller to the purchaser an excise tax which shall be determined as follows:

'(1) When the seller, in accordance with his rules and regulations, renders a bill to the purchaser to cover purchases made during the period of time to which the bill is applicable, the amount of excise tax shall be ten per cent, exclusive of governmental charges and taxes, shown on any such bill, due and payable on account of such purchases, of such total amount.'

The trial court held the ordinance was valid, and the plaintiff Ralph H. Bearden, Jr., appealed.

The appellant contends the ordinance should have been declared to be invalid because the proceeds therefrom go into 'the general county fund for the benefit of all the county' ¹ and because the ordinance is vague and uncertain.

Dade County had authority to impose such a tax in the unincorporated area of the county, by constitutional grant of such power to (Home Rule) Dade County. Specifically by subsection 21 of § 1.01(A) of its charter the county is authorized to exercise powers and privileges granted to municipalities; and by statute (§ 167.431 Fla.Stat., F.S.A.) municipalities can impose taxes of the kind involved here. Additionally, by § 1.01(D) of the Dade County charter, the county commission is authorized to levy in the unincorporated areas all taxes authorized to be levied by municipalities. See State ex rel. Dade County v. Brautigam, Fla.1969, 224 So.2d 688.

After upholding the ordinance substantially on the foregoing basis, the trial court noted and dispensed with, adversely to the plaintiff (appellant), the contention that the ordinance should be declared invalid because by placing the proceeds in the county's general fund there was no assurance the proceeds would be devoted only for the benefit of the citizens of the unincorporated areas of the county. With regard thereto the judgment of the trial court stated:

'The plaintiff's argument that municipal taxpayers may receive some benefit from the tax monies paid by those in the unincorporated area does not, in the Court's opinion, invalidate the tax. First, there is no showing that all the tax...