Freeze v. Pinellas County, 31884
| Decision Date | 17 October 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 31884,31884 |
| Citation | 146 So.2d 97 |
| Parties | Walter H. FREEZE, Appellant, v. COUNTY OF PINELLAS, State of Florida, a political subdivision, Mac S. Haines as Pinellas County Tax Assessor, Avery W. Gilkerson, as County Clerk, and Hunnicutt and Associates, Inc., Appellees. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Jack F. White and Driver & White, Clearwater, for appellant.
Page S. Jackson, St. Petersburg, for County of Pinellas, Mac S. Haines, as Tax Assessor and Avery W. Gilkerson, County Clerk.
Lemuel S. Hunnicutt and Rood, Dixon, McEwen & Hunnicutt, St. Petersburg, for Hunnicutt & Associates, Inc.
Appeal has been taken from a final summary decree of the Circuit Court for Pinellas County 1 directly passing upon and sustaining the validity of Section 193.11, Florida Statutes, F.S.A.
The statute provides in part: The appellee County, by contract pursuant to this statute, obtained the services of the Hunnicutt corporation, upon specified terms, to appraise all taxable real property within the county boundaries for the information, guidance and use of the county tax assessor in preparing the Pinellas County tax roll. Bill for injunction against performance of the contract was subsequently filed by the appellant taxpayer upon several grounds, including that of constitutional transgression hereinafter detailed.
In the resulting decree the court found, upon the pleadings, affidavits and depositions filed in the cause, that the contract was a valid obligation of the parties and did not conflict with Section 193.11 2 or 193.111, Florida Statutes, nor with Chapter 26464, Laws of Florida, Extraordinary Session of 1949, which authorized and controlled a reassessment at that time of taxable property within Pinellas County. The court also found that Section 193.111, supra, does not constitute an unlawful delegation of any of the powers and authority of the county, the County Tax Assessor, or the County Clerk to the Hunnicutt corporation in contravention of Article VIII, Section 20, or other provision of the Florida Constitution.
We conclude that the decree must be affirmed. The requirement of Article VIII, Section 20 is that the Pinellas County Tax Assessor 'shall assess all property for all * * * taxes to be levied in the county' by state and local authorities. The provisions of Section 193.111, and the more specific terms of the contract here involved, do not contravene directly or indirectly the constitutional mandate.
The contract required, in substance, the submission of evaluations together with substantiating data, 3 representation at meetings for purposes of explanation and technical assistance, and conduct of a limited program of public information and understanding. We find no authority which would condemn the rendition of such services to public officials charged with the performance of governmental functions. 4 In the exercise of all governmental power it is obviously the ultimate judgment or decision which an officer is required to make personally. 5 The statute, pleadings and exhibits 6 involved in this cause are conclusive that such power has not been surrendered or removed from the assessor in favor of either the corporate appraisers or supervising county officials nor could it be. In State ex rel. Glynn v. McNayr 7 we specifically held that such appraisals '[were] not binding on the tax assessor although it could properly be used by him as a guide.'
Nor is there merit to the contention that Chapter 26464, supra, prevents Pinellas County's utilization of the subsequent general law, which on its face has a statewide application. The special act is not in terms exclusive or inconsistent with Sec. 193.111 and cannot therefore serve as the basis for application of the rule of statutory construction under which special laws take precedence over general provisions on identical subject matter.
The remaining points urged by appellant have been fully considered and resolved in favor of the adjudication below.
Affirmed.
1 Art. V, Sec. 4(2), Florida Constitution, F.S.A.
2 Containing the general provision that county tax assessors, with appointed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Walker v. Trump, 88-1309
...since such appraisals produced by outside firms are not binding upon the property appraiser but may serve as a guide. Freeze v. County of Pinellas, 146 So.2d 97 (Fla.1962); State ex rel Glynn v. McNayr, 133 So.2d 312 (Fla.1961). In this case the testimony shows that the report was submitted......
-
Osborn v. Yeager
...property for the year 1961, but this fact is no deterrent to the actual valid assessment made by the tax assessor. See Freeze v. County of Pinellas, Fla.1962, 146 So.2d 97. He used the advice of Hunnicutt, but the actual figures on assessment, whether they agreed with Hunnicutt or not, were......
-
Collins v. Wainwright
... ... confinement but remanded to the custody of the sheriff of Lake County, Florida, where the crime was alleged to have been committed, so that he ... ...