Dickinson v. Geraci

• Decision Date: 30 September 1966
• Docket Number: No. 7309,7309
• Citation: 190 So.2d 368
• Parties: Fred O. DICKINSON, Jr., Comptroller of the State of Florida, Appellant, v. Roy N. GERACI and Pearl Geraei, husband and wife, R. R. Walden, as Tax Assessor of Hillsborough County, Florida, and Rudy Rodriguez, Ellsworth G. Simmons, Clarence Prevatt, Frank Neff and Elbert Moore, as the Board of County Commissioners of Hillsborough County, Florida, Appellees.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 368

190 So.2d 368

Fred O. DICKINSON, Jr., Comptroller of the State of Florida, Appellant, v. Roy N. GERACI and Pearl Geraei, husband and wife, R. R. Walden, as Tax Assessor of Hillsborough County, Florida, and Rudy Rodriguez, Ellsworth G. Simmons, Clarence Prevatt, Frank Neff and Elbert Moore, as the Board of County Commissioners of Hillsborough County, Florida, Appellees.

No. 7309.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Sept. 30, 1966.

H. Elmo Robinson, West Palm Beach, Warren M. Cason, John W. McWhirter, Jr., Tampa, for appellant.

C. Lawrence Stagg, of Knight, Jones, Whitaker & Germany, Tampa, for appellees, Roy N. Geraci and Pearl Geraci.

William Terrell Hodges, of Macfarlane, Ferguson, Allison, Kelly & Himes, Tampa, for appelle, R. R. Walden.

William G. O'Neill, Ocala, and Ervin, Pennington, Varn & Jacobs, Tallahassee, amicus curiae.

ALLEN, Chief Judge.

The plaintiffs below, Roy N. Geraci and Pearl Geraci, filed a complaint against R. R. Walden, as Tax Assessor, and other public officials of Hillsborough County, in which they alleged in part that they were the owners of substantial parcels of real property in Hillsborough County, one of said parcels being the homestead of the parties, and other parcels are used for citrus groves and are 'agricultural' in character.

Plaintiffs alleged, in addition to their individual rights, that they were suing for the benefit of all other similarly situated owners of real property within the county.

Plaintiffs alleged an agreement the tax assessor had entered into with Hunnicutt & Associates, Inc., which is a corporation that performs property valuation and appraisal services under contracts; that the purpose of this reappraisal was to equalize the existing assessed values of property in Hillsborough County, thereby effecting a more equitable distribution of the tax burden, and that such reappraisal was presently being conducted; that the reappraisal will be completed prior to July 1, 1967, but it cannot be completed in time for use in preparing the 1966 tax rolls.

Plaintiffs further alleged in their complaint that the defendant Comptroller had ordered defendant Assessor to 'factor' the real and tangible personal property tax rolls of Hillsborough County for the year 1966, and assigned a 'tax factor' of 1.818 for Hillsborough County. 'In compliance with the instructions of Defendant Comptroller, Defendant Assessor intends to multiply the the present assessed value assigned to each parcel of property reflected on the tax rolls of this county by the prescribed 'factor'.'

Plaintiffs allege that the Comptroller has required that this 'factoring' be completed no later than September 15, 1966, unless an extension to November 1, 1966 is granted under specified circumstances; that the property owned by plaintiffs, and others similarly situated, cannot be fairly or properly assessed at fair market value by applying a fixed factor or multiplier to existing assessed values. The values of property which would be computed by use of such method would bear no just relation to the real value of the property being assessed and would result in substantial inequality in such valuation. Plaintiffs further allege this method would produce such arbitrary and discriminatory assessments that it would only serve to compound, exaggerate and multiply any inequalities and disparities which now prevail in the assessed value of properties listed upon the present Hillsborough County tax rolls.

The plaintiffs ask, among other things, for the following relief:

(1) That the use of an artificial factor to multiply the present assessments of property located in Hillsborough County is unlawful;

(2) That the only proper and just method for the accomplishment of a uniform and equal assessment is through a complete reappraisal of such property, such as that presently being accomplished under the Hunnicutt contract (3) That if the Hunnicutt appraisal will not be complete in time for use in preparing the 1966 tax rolls of Hillsborough County, that the 1966 tax rolls may be prepared in accordance with the procedure followed by defendant Assessor in prior years, without prejudice to the right of any individual taxpayer to contest the amount or validity of any particular assessment; that the Assessor be permanently restrained from the use of any fixed factor or the use of any similar artificial means to increase property assessments in Hillsborough County; and that the defendant Comptroller be permanently restrained and enjoined from compelling the use by defendant Assessor of any fixed factor to multiply existing assessed values of property located in Hillsborough County, and that the defendant Comptroller be mandatorily enjoined to accept and approve the 1966 Hillsborough County tax rolls (or the recapitulatory tables thereof) if prepared and submitted in accordance with the Court's decree.

The Tax Assessor answered and, in effect, admits all allegations complained of in plaintiffs' complaint, except insofar as they were explained or amplified in the defendant Assessor's Cross-Claim against the defendant, Fred O. Dickinson, Jr., as Comptroller of the State of Florida.

The Tax Assessor's Cross-Claim against the Comptroller alleged that prior to June 28, 1965, and during his years of service as Tax Assessor, he had endeavored to assess all property for ad valorem taxation at its 'full cash value' as provided by statute; and in determining full cash value he followed and applied the 1948 decision of the Supreme Court of Florida in State ex rel. Kent Corporation v. Board of County Commissioners, 160 Fla. 900, 37 So.2d 252 (1948), in which the Court held that current sales prices were not controlling or determinative of assessed values, and that tax assessors should strive to fix assessments somewhere between past and present market values as the 'full cash value' of property.

The Tax Assessor further alleged in his Cross-Claim that:

'Upon learning of the Supreme Court's decision in Walter vs. Schuler, this Defendant determined and decided that it would be necessary to re-appraise and revalue all the real and personal property in Hillsborough County to insure that past assessments, as annually updated and revised in the normal course of affairs, measured up or complied with the new 'market value' requirement with regard to assessments; and in view of the vast amount of complex work necessitated by such an undertaking, there being over 200,000 separate entries on the real property tax roll alone, this Defendant immediately began negotiating with the professional mass appraisal firm of Hunnicutt & Associates, Inc., to render its assistance so that the work might be accomplished properly and at the earliest practicable time.'

The Tax Assessor further alleged that on October 29, 1965, he entered into a written contract with Hunnicutt & Associates, Inc., to provide the necessary qualified personnel and other technical assistance to him for the purpose of reappraising all the real and personal property in Hillsborough County; that such mass reappraisal program was begun immediately and is being conducted with all possible dispatch, and will be completed prior to July 1, 1967, in time for use in preparing the 1967 tax rolls for Hillsborough County. Such program, however, he alleged, will not be completed in time for use in connection with the preparation of the 1966 tax rolls which have, in fact, already been prepared and completed. A copy of the Hunnicutt contract was attached to the Answer and Cross-Claim.

Judge Oliver Maxwell entered a pre-trial order August 24, 1966, in which he stated:

'That upon the pleadings of the several parties now on file, the issues of fact to be tried are as follows:

'(a) Whether the 1966 tax rolls as prepared by the Defendant R. R. Walden assess all property, or classes of property, at the same percentage of 'fair market value,' or if there are varying ratios of assessment in relation to 'fair market value,' whether a factor or multiplier can be applied so as to produce uniform and equal tax rolls at 100% Of 'fair market value.'

'(b) Whether the mass re-appraisal program now being conducted by Hunnicutt & Associates, Inc., can be completed in sufficient time for use in connection with the 1966 tax rolls.

'(c) Whether there is any method, other than by 'factoring' or by mass re-appraisal, whereby uniform and equal tax rolls can be prepared for 1966 with all property assessed at 100% Of 'fair market value.' 'That each of the several parties have stipulated and agreed, and the Court finds, that any delay in the completion and equalization of the 1966 tax rolls which results, in turn, in a delay in the mailing of ad valorem tax bills until after December 31, 1966, will cause chaos and confusion among the thousands of property owners in Hillsborough County; the financial community at large; and in the fiscal affairs of the County and the several taxing agencies dependent upon the tax rolls for revenue.'

Judge Maxwell, after hearing the testimony on the 25th day of August, 1966, entered his final decree in which he stated that the Tax Assessor Walden, for the year 1965 and for many years prior thereto, assessed Hillsborough County property at its just or 'full cash value' as defined by the Supreme Court of Florida in State ex rel. Kent Corporation v. Board of County Commissioners, 160 Fla. 900, 37 So.2d 252 (1948), and in accordance with the Florida Tax Assessor's Manual (1959) prepared by the State Comptroller, pursuant to Florida Statute, § 192.31, F.S.A. Judge Maxwell's final decree then stated:

'* * * In so doing, and as suggested by such manual (pages 27--28), the said Tax Assessor left out or disregarded the 'high point of inflation and the low point of depression' reflected in current as related to past sales prices, and in the case of improved property, he adhered to the admonition of the National Association of Assessing Officers as set forth...