Hausman v. Hartog

• Decision Date: 27 December 1978
• Docket Number: No. 76-2051,76-2051
• Citation: 371 So.2d 1036
• Parties: Ford HAUSMAN, as Orange County Property Appraiser et al., Appellants, v. Albert G. HARTOG, as Trustee, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 1036

371 So.2d 1036

Ford HAUSMAN, as Orange County Property Appraiser et al., Appellants, v. Albert G. HARTOG, as Trustee, Appellee.

No. 76-2051.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Dec. 27, 1978.

Rehearing Denied June 27, 1979.

Gaylord A. Wood, Jr., Fort Lauderdale, and Steven R. Bechtel, Orlando, for appellants.

Albert G. Hartog, Orlando, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a final judgment reinstating the classification of 80 acres of CROSS, ANSTEAD and DAUKSCH, JJ., concur.

appellee's property as agricultural. We find no error in the final judgment as to the classification of a 25 acre orange grove located on the appellee's property. Roden v. K & K Land Management, Inc., 368 So.2d 588 (Fla. 1978). However, there is no evidence to support an agricultural classification for the remaining 55 acres of vacant land owned by the appellee. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in part with directions that further proceedings be conducted in accordance with this opinion.

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

Petition for Rehearing is DENIED.

CROSS and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.

DAUKSCH, J., concurs specially with opinion.

DAUKSCH, Judge, concurring specially:

Because this case was controlled by Roden v. K & K Land Management, Inc., 368 So.2d 588 (Fla.S.Ct. Case No. 51,954, Opinion filed March 22, 1979), I reluctantly joined 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 in Roden v. K & K Land Management, Inc., 368 So.2d 588 (Fla.S.Ct. Case No. 51, 954, Opinion filed July 20, 1978).

Now that a most substantial minority of our Supreme Court have set out their dissent in the order on rehearing in Roden, I say that I must obey the majority opinion of our Supreme Court but I should much rather see right, as that mentioned minority saw it, prevail.

In my opinion the entire tract was bought and is held as a speculative investment and should be taxed as such, not as agricultural land.