First Nat. Bank of Hollywood v. Markham
| Decision Date | 11 February 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 76--320,76--320 |
| Citation | 342 So.2d 1016 |
| Parties | FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF HOLLYWOOD, as Trustee, Appellant, v. William MARKHAM, Broward County Property Appraiser, et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Jack F. Weins of Abrams, Anton, Robbins, Resnick & Schneider, Hollywood, for appellant.
Gaylord A. Wood, Jr., of Wood & Cohen, Fort Lauderdale, and Edward J. Williams, Asst. Gen. Counsel for Broward County, Fort Lauderdale, for appellees.
This appeal results from a denial by the property appraiser of an application for agricultural classification of real property. The case proceeded thru the administrative route, a law suit and Summary Judgment for the property appraiser to this appeal.
The Appellant urges its land should be granted the benefit of an agricultural classification which should result in a lower tax rate than non-agricultural land. The Appellee maintains that the land is not entitled to the more beneficial classification because it is not being used for bona fide agricultural purposes as defined in Section 193.461(3)(b), Florida Statutes (1976) which requires more than just agricultural use to entitle the owner to the agricultural classification.
The facts of this case are essentially undisputed and the court below had no choice but to grant the Summary Judgment which we hereby affirm. The Appellant as trustee for a Jacksonville family took title to the land after paying approximately $5,800,000 for the approximately 1,080 acres. This amounts to approximately $5,400 per acre. The beneficial owner of the property does not intend to develop the property but to hold it for resale with the hope of a profit. In order to help carry the property, cattle grazing and sod production was begun when the property was purchased in 1973. The agricultural classification in question here was for the year 1974. The evidence indicates in 1974 the expense of the property was $255,326.50 of which $218,000 was for interest. There was no income from the agricultural enterprises but one of the beneficial owners testified that he expected in 1975 approximately $87,000 income from agriculture but that there would be an interest payment of $600,000 due for the year 1975.
There was evidence submitted by affidavit by Appellant that this land had been previously used as a dairy farm and that this land was presently being used for agricultural purposes. When we read Section 193.461(3)(b), Florida Statutes (197...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fogg v. Broward County, 79-205
...use was the crucial consideration and that profit or profit motive was not a necessity. The decision in First National Bank of Hollywood v. Markham, 342 So.2d 1016 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977), holding that commercial agriculture meant profitable agriculture was disapproved. In Fisher v. Schooley, 3......
-
Hausman v. Hartog
...in the majority opinion notwithstanding my interpretation of the applicable tax laws as I expressed in First National Bank of Hollywood v. Markham, 342 So.2d 1016 (Fla. 4 DCA 1977). It is noted a portion of my expression in First National Bank of Hollywood v. Markham, supra, was disapproved......
-
Markham v. Nationwide Development Co.
...supplied.) Good faith commercial agricultural use of the land requires more than mere agricultural use. First National Bank of Hollywood v. Markham, 342 So.2d 1016 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). To be a good faith commercial agricultural use, there must be at least a reasonable expectation of meeting......
- First National Bank of Hollywood v. Markham