Coe v. Broward County
| Decision Date | 10 April 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 77-1357,77-1357 |
| Citation | 358 So.2d 214 |
| Parties | Constance D. COE, Gerald McClish, William C. Shoemaker, William Sills and George A. Wohlford, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Appellants, v. BROWARD COUNTY, Florida, Lester L. Bauer as Tax Collector of Broward County, Florida and William G. Markham as Tax Assessor of Broward County, Florida, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Barry Scott Richard, of Snyder, Yount, Stern, Barrett & Tannenbaum, P.A., North Miami Beach, for appellants.
Betty Lynn Lee, Gen. Counsel for Broward County, and Harry A. Stewart, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Fort Lauderdale, for appellees.
This is an appeal by the appellant-taxpayers of an order denying their request for a refund of some $3,800,000.00 in taxes unlawfully assessed by Broward County, one of the appellees herein.
In a previous appeal of this class action it was held that Broward County lacked authority to levy certain taxes in excess of the statutory property tax ceiling. 1 On remand the taxpayers petitioned the trial court to order a refund of the taxes paid pursuant to the excess levy. The county opposed the refund on equitable grounds, citing Gulesian v. Dade County School Board, 281 So.2d 325 (Fla.1973) in support of its position. In Gulesian the Supreme Court approved a trial court's refusal to order refunds where the school board acted in good faith in assessing the tax in question, and a refund would work great hardship on the school district involved.
Upon hearing the trial court entered an order sustaining the county's position on the following grounds:
1. That the county acted in good faith in assessing the excess tax.
2. That the administrative cost to the county to process the refunds would be great, approximately $490,000.00, compared to the small average refund per taxpayer, approximately $10.00.
3. That the refund would have to be borne in part by taxpayers who would not participate in the refund, because of the change of ownership of property in the county since the tax was assessed.
4. That the collected taxes have already been spent and although the county has surplus funds on hand, those funds are for emergencies, such as hurricanes, and the risk of harm to the public by using those funds outweighs the rights of the appellants to a refund.
In Gulesian the Supreme Court summarized the trial court's finding:
He found specifically, (1) that the .82 mills represented $7,300,000 that had been collected and expended for school purposes and to require refund thereof in small amounts to over 350,000 Dade County taxpayers would impose an intolerable burden on the School Board; would result in great expense; further complicate its budgetary problems and cause immense administrative difficulties; (2) that the School Board in adopting the .82 mill excess levy acted in good faith in reliance on a presumptively valid statute (F.S. Section 236.25, F.S.A. as amended by Ch. 71-263, Laws of Florida), and has since faced increasingly critical budgeting problems and a refund would greatly compound these problems.
While the appellees have suggested other grounds for sustaining the trial court's order 2, we believe the only question is whether this case comes within the holding of Gulesian.
First, we believe the law to be that a taxpayer is normally entitled to a refund of taxes paid pursuant to an unlawful assessment. 3 We construe the Supreme Court's ruling in Gulesian to have carved out a very narrow exception to the taxpayer's right to a refund.
The point most emphasized by the Supreme Court in Gulesian was the good faith of the school board in making the assessment. 4 There, a federal district court had struck down the entire provision in the state constitution which placed a 10 mill limit on tax assessments. After this decision the Florida legislature passed specific legislation authorizing certain taxes in excess of 10 mills. The school board then levied and collected a tax in strict compliance with this legislative authority. Thereafter, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated the 10 mill limit, thereby invalidating both the legislation in question and the tax levied by the school board. It is clear that the school board acted at all times in accordance with the law as then interpreted by the courts and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Madison County v. Foxx
...Upon examination of the case law on the subject, Gulesian v. Dade County School Board, 281 So.2d 325 (Fla.1973) and Coe v. Broward County, 358 So.2d 214 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978), it is our view that many factual and legal issues remain to be considered before deciding the refund issue, and it wa......
-
Minnelusa Co. v. Andrikopoulos
... ... Gower subsequently refused to honor his guarantee. The plaintiffs filed suit in Arapahoe County District Court 1 to collect the unpaid balance due under acceleration clauses contained in the promissory notes. In response, Minnelusa and Gower ... ...
-
Disc. Sleep of Ocala, LLC v. City of Ocala, Case No. 5D19-1899
...As a general rule, "a taxpayer is normally entitled to a refund of taxes paid pursuant to an unlawful assessment." Coe v. Broward Cty., 358 So. 2d 214, 216 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978) ; see also Esch, 137 So. at 4. But the common law voluntary payment defense can preclude a refund when the party se......
-
Dryden v. Madison County
...which had been so held by a trial court but later reversed by the appellate court. This point was recognized in Coe v. Broward County, 358 So.2d 214, 215-16 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978), in which the court noted that Gulesian had carved out a very narrow exception to the taxpayer's right to a refund......