Graham v. City of West Tampa

• Decision Date: 18 May 1916
• Parties: GRAHAM v. CITY OF WEST TAMPA.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

71 So. 926

71 Fla. 605

GRAHAM v. CITY OF WEST TAMPA.

Florida Supreme Court

May 18, 1916

Appeal from Circuit Court, Hillsborough County; F. M. Robles, Judge.

Bill of equity by James S. Graham against the City of West Tampa. From an order sustaining a demurrer to the bill of complaint defendant appeals. Reversed.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

The Constitution ordains that the Legislature shall provide for a uniform and equal rate of taxation, and shall prescribe such regulations as shall secure a just valuation of all property both real and personal, that is subject to taxation, that all property shall be taxed upon the principles established for state taxation, but cities and towns shall make their own assessments for municipal purposes, and, when general statutes provide regulation by which just valuations and uniform and equal taxation may be attained, it is not essential that such regulations be incorporated in the charter of a city which has the powers conferred upon municipalities by the general laws, and under a power to tax such city may prescribe appropriate regulations to secure just valuations and a uniform and equal rate of taxation.

Valuations for taxation must have a just relation to the real value of the property assessed, and there must be no substantial inequality in valuations in the various kinds and items of property that is subject to the tax.

The means and methods prescribed for ascertaining the value of property for taxation purposes must be substantially observed and followed, or else the assessment will be invalid and a taking of property without due process of law.

While the law accords a range of discretion to the officer authorized to ascertain and determine valuations of property for purposes of taxation when the officer proceeds in accordance with and substantially complies with the requirements of law designed to ascertain such values, yet if the steps required to be taken in making valuations are not, in fact, and in good faith actually taken, and the valuations are shown to be essentially unjust or unequal abstractly or relatively, the assessment is invalid.

Where the essential requirements of law are not observed in making valuations of property for assessment, and the valuations as made are shown by admissions or proofs to be clearly excessive, unjust, and unequal, appropriate relief may be had in equity, even though the proceedings authorized by law for seeking relief from administrative officers were no utilized where the case made shows a flagrant violation of or omission to follow the mandatory requirements of the law in valuing property for taxation.

COUNSEL Sandler & Nysewander, of Tampa, for appellant.

Howard P. Macfarlane, of Tampa, for appellee.

OPINION

WHITFIELD J.

In a bill of complaint Graham alleges, in effect, that he owns described lands in the city of West Tampa; that under asserted authority the municipality 'attempted to assess levy and collect taxes for the year 1914 against complainant's said land, the said taxes amounting to $74.70, as shown by the defendant's assessment roll for the said year'; that such levy and assessment are illegal and void, because the charter act contains no provision for 'uniform and equal rate of taxation,' or 'prescribe such regulations as shall secure a just valuation of all property'; that an ordinance of the city adopted prior to the present city charter purporting to provide for the constitutional requirements of uniformity, equality, and just valuation, is ultra vires, and was incapable of being ratified by the present city charter; that the property was not 'taxed upon the principles established for state taxation,' as required by the Constitution; that said taxes are not, in fact, just; that one W. J. Twitt acted as defendant's tax assessor for the year 1914, and, as such assessor, it became and was his duty to do those things and adopt such methods as would adequately secure to complainant a just valuation of his property for assessment, but, wholly failing thus to do, said assessor assessed complainant's land at a value entirely arbitrary, unjust, and excessive, said value being arrived at or determined in an arbitrary and illegal manner; that said assessor at no time visited or inspected said lands, though unacquainted with their value, and though often requested so to do by complainant, and complainant on information and belief charges that said assessor made no effort to ascertain and determine the value of said lands, and that the value actually placed thereon by said assessor, to wit, $4,150, was by him fixed arbitrarily, and not upon any evidence which might or could enable him to form a fair and just estimate of its value for assessment; that said assessed value is more than double the actual cash, fair, or just value of said lands; that they have never been and are not worth over $2,000; that said assessor failed to assess for taxation the personal property of numerous of defendant's taxpayers, including complainant; that, in fact, no due or real effort was made by said assessor to assess the personal property, subject to taxation by defendant, during said year; that he listed for personal property taxation for that year not over 200 persons, as appears by defendant's assessment roll, whereas defendant's personal property taxpayers are many times said number, that is to say, the persons owning personal property subject to taxation by defendant for said year far exceeded the number actually taxed, said omission to assess or tax such a great amount of personal property being...