Fredericks v. Blake, 78-1805
| Decision Date | 18 March 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 78-1805,78-1805 |
| Citation | 382 So.2d 368 |
| Parties | Ralph FREDERICKS, Appellant, v. A. H. BLAKE, Property Appraiser for Metropolitan Dade County, Florida; HarryCoe, Florida Department of Revenue, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James F. Pollack, Coral Gables, for appellant.
Robert A. Ginsburg, County Atty. and Robert L. Krawcheck, Asst. County Atty., Jim Smith, Atty. Gen. and Joseph C. Mellichamp, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellees.
Before HAVERFIELD, C. J., and PEARSON and SCHWARTZ, JJ.
Ralph Fredericks, plaintiff-taxpayer, appeals an order dismissing with prejudice his complaint to enjoin state approval of the 1978 preliminary tax assessment rolls for Dade County.
On July 11, 1978, Ralph Fredericks, as owner of taxable real properties in Dade County, filed a complaint to invalidate the preliminary 1978 tax assessment rolls and named as defendants Dade County, the property appraiser A. H. Blake, and Harry Coe as executive director of the State of Florida, Department of Revenue. Fredericks basically alleged that the tax rolls were a mixture of dissimilar and unequal assessments and, therefore, illegal. He requested that the court enjoin approval of the 1978 Dade County preliminary tax rolls by the Department of Revenue and all tax complaint hearings to be held pursuant to Section 194.032, Florida Statutes (1977). He also asked that a tax appraiser ad litem be appointed by the court. Defendants Dade County, Blake and Coe filed motions to dismiss listing numerous grounds including lack of standing, failure to exhaust administrative remedies, failure to enjoin indispensable parties, absence of allegations of irreparable injury, etc. After a hearing, the court entered the order dismissing with prejudice Fredericks' complaint for injunctive relief for the reasons of failure to exhaust administrative remedies and mootness in that the preliminary tax roll had already been approved (while the action was pending). Fredericks appeals therefrom. We affirm.
An injunction is a drastic remedy which should be granted cautiously and sparingly and the essential requisites for an injunction are lack of a full, complete remedy at law and prevention of irreparable injury. Parrish v. Joyner, 54 So.2d 50 (Fla.1951); Stoner v. South Peninsular Zoning Commission, 75 So.2d 831 (Fla.1954). Thus, a taxpayer of the state or county has standing to bring an action for a declaratory decree and/or injunctive relief against the proper public officials to restrain the unlawful exercise of the state or county's taxing or spending authority only upon a showing of a special injury to such taxpayer which is distinct from that sustained by every other taxpayer in the taxing unit. Department of Administration v. Horne, 269 So.2d 659 (Fla.1972); Paul v. Blake, 376 So.2d 256 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); see also City of Coral Springs v. Florida Nat. Properties, 340 So.2d 1271, 1272 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). As in the instant case where the taxpayer is contesting an assessment, he or she must allege (as special injury) that his or her property is either being assessed at greater than 100% of its fair market value or that substantially all other property in the county is systematically assessed at a value less than the assessment of his or her property. Deltona Corporation v. Bailey, 336 So.2d 1163, 1167-68 (Fla.1976). Fredericks' complaint for injunctive relief contains no allegations of special injury.
We further find that the allegations of the complaint fail to fall within the exception to the special injury standing requirement. A taxpayer may institute a suit without a showing of special injury if he attacks the exercise of the state or county's taxing or spending authority on the ground that it exceeds specific limitations imposed on the state or county's taxing or spending power by the United States or Florida Constitutions. Paul v. Blake, 376 So.2d 256, 259 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), supra. Outside of the broad unsupported allegation that the 1978 tax rolls are in violation of Article 7, Section 1 of the Florida Constitution () Fredericks' complaint fails to allege violations of specific provisions of the Florida Constitution relating solely to the county's taxing power.
In addition, Fredericks has failed to demonstrate that there are no full, complete and adequate remedies at law...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stanberry v. Escambia County
...complainant to have the relief he seeks."); Fla. Land Co. v. Orange County, 418 So.2d 370, 372 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Fredericks v. Blake, 382 So.2d 368, 371 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). The apparent adequacy of remedies at law which Mr. Stanberry has thus far successfully pursued weighs, moreover, ag......
-
Alachua County v. Scharps, 1D02-3240.
...violations did not constitute `violations of specific provisions of the Florida Constitution.'" Id. at 688 (quoting Fredericks v. Blake, 382 So.2d 368, 370 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)). Similarly in City of Atlantic Beach v. Bull, 476 So.2d 158 (Fla.1985), the plaintiff relied on the same theory of ......
-
Wilson v. School Bd. of Marion County
...So.2d 659 (Fla.1972); Rio Vista Hotel & Improvement Co. v. Belle Mead Dev. Corp., 132 Fla. 88, 182 So. 417 (1937); Fredericks v. Blake, 382 So.2d 368 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); City of Coral Springs v. Florida Nat'l Properties, Inc., 340 So.2d 1271 (Fla. 4th DCA ...
-
Florida Land Co. v. Orange County, 81-1090
...and injury to the public outweighing any individual right to relief the complainant may have. 351 So.2d at 44. In Fredericks v. Blake, 382 So.2d 368 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), the Third District Court of Appeal reiterated that an injunction will not be granted where it is readily apparent that it ......