Dixon v. City of Cocoa
| Decision Date | 30 September 1932 |
| Citation | 106 Fla. 855,143 So. 748 |
| Parties | DIXON et al. v. CITY OF COCOA. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Suit by City of Cocoa against R. L. Dixon and wife and all persons who are owners of, have any interest in, or right to, or liens on, the real estate hereinafter described (except as tenants), and the real estate hereinafter described. From an order overruling demurrer to the bill of complaint defendants appeal.
Reversed. Appeal from Circuit Court, Brevard County; W W. Wright, judge.
John D Shepard, of Cocoa, for appellants.
Fleming & Snow, of Cocoa, for appellee.
The city of Cocoa filed suit to enforce an alleged lien for unpaid taxes for the years 1928 and 1929. The bill alleged that the lands were assessed in the name of the owner, and that the description and assessment on the assessment roll was as follows:
Valuation Am't of
Owner Description taxes
R. L Dixon All of lot 6, Robert $45,000 $585.00
E. C Johnson and
Fairview Land Co.
There was a demurrer filed to the bill of complaint. By the demurrer the questions were raised as to whether or not the description used in the asesssment roll was sufficient and whether or not the complainant stated a case under which it could have the relief prayed. The bill alleges that the lands sought to be assessed are described as follows:
'All of lot No. 6 of the Subdivision of Robert Dixon's Homestead, as shown by a plat of said subdivision recorded in the public records of Brevard County, except that portion of said lot conveyed to Fairview Land Company, now owned by Crest View Inc., (the same lying on the south side of said lot 6, and being a strip clear across said lot from east to west, the north and south lines being parallel, and the western line of which is 249.26 feet) and except that portion conveyed to E. C. Johnson 'lying immediately north of the Fairview Land Company tract and being a strip clear across said lot from east to west, the north and south lines being parallel, and the western line of which is 117.48 feet,' said land being portions of sections 20 and 21, township 24 south, range 36 east, and being in the City of Cocoa, Brevard County, Florida, excepting therefrom the right of way of the Florida East Coast Railway and the right of way of New Dixie Highway.'
The bill prays foreclosure of its lien as against the lands so described. A comparison of the two descriptions shows clearly that the description used in the assessment roll is entirely inadequate. The description is no more definite than it would have been had it read:
Amount of
Owner Description Valuation taxes
R. L. Dixon Part of lot 6 $45,000 $585.00
The bill does not allege that anything appears in the tax roll which clarifies or makes more definite the description. The description contained in the tax roll would not be sufficient to protect the lands from reassessment under the description which is set forth in the bill as a correct description of the lands. The description neither describes the land so it may be located by reference thereto nor as is required by section 718, Rev. Gen. St. 1920, section 920, Comp. Gen. Laws 1927, which provides in part: 'That when private surveys of land or descriptions by metes and bounds have taken the place of government surveys, and the land is known, designated and described only by such private surveys or metes and bounds, the description in the assessment shall be made in accordance with such surveys or descriptions as recorded in the office of the clerk of the circuit court, or by reference to deed of record, giving the book and page as appears in the office of the clerk of the circuit court.'
See Johnson v. Benbow, 93 Fla. 124, 111 So. 504.
The assessment is invalid because of insufficiency of the description. Grissom v. Furman, 22 Fla. 581; Miller v. Lindstrom, 45 Fla. 473, 33 So. 521; Porter v. City of Key West, 69 Fla. 357, 68 So. 175; F. E. C. Fruit Land Co. v. Mitchell, 80 Fla. 291, 85 So. 661.
As the description is invalid, the complainant was not entitled to a decree of foreclosure as against lands described otherwise and which may be, so far as the assessment roll shows, either the same or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Addison v. Benedict, 68--95
...1913, 65 Fla. 141, 61 So. 240; Florida East Coast Fruit Land Co. v. Mitchell, 1920, 80 Fla. 291, 85 So. 661; Dixon v. City of Cocoa, 1932, 106 Fla. 855, 143 So. 748; Crawford v. Rehwinkel, Fla.1935, 163 So. 851, supra; Crawford v. Rehwinkel, Fla.1937, 174 So. 455, supra; H & H Investment Co......
-
Ranger Realty Co. v. Hefty
...for the same taxes under the description stated in the bill of complaint to be a correct description of the land. Dixon v. City of Cocoa (Fla.) 143 So. 748. in assessment roll which makes it possible for surveyor, with aid of tax record, to identify property with reasonable accuracy, is suf......
-
Mitchell v. Moore
... ... There is a vital difference in the descriptions involved. And ... in the case of Dixon v. City of Cocoa, 106 Fla. 855, ... 143 So. 748, the description contained in a bill to enforce a ... ...
-
Gautier v. Town of Crescent City
... ... attempted to be assessed could not be located by reference to ... any description or matter appearing on the assessment roll ... See Dixon et al. v. City of Cocoa, 106 Fla. 855, 143 ... So. 748, and cases there cited; Trust Co. of Florida v ... City of Tampa, 103 Fla. 628, 138 So. 73 ... ...