Hoffman v. Land
| Decision Date | 18 December 1951 |
| Citation | 55 So.2d 806 |
| Parties | HOFFMAN, as Tax Assessor of Franklin County v. LAND et al. HOFFMAN, as Tax Assessor of Franklin County v. MITCHELL et al. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Wm. J. Oven, B. A. Meginniss of Meginniss, Thompson & Morrison, Tallahassee, for appellant.
McLeod & McLeod, Apalachicola, for appellee.
The above cases were by this Court consolidated for hearing and the two were so briefed and orally argued by counsel for the respective parties. It is not disputed that C. C. Land and J. A. Shuler and A. S. Mitchell owned cut-over, wild and unimproved described lands situated in Franklin County, Florida, subject to taxation for the year 1950, or that the appellant F. A. Hoffman was Tax Assessor, or O. C. Melvin was Tax Collector of Franklin County during the taxable year. The Board of County Commissioners were H. L. Cook, Chairman, W. F. Randolph, J. G. Bruce, G. W. Segree and George L. Wing. The taproot of the whole controversy is the correct valuation of the described property during the year 1950 for taxation purposes. The appellant Tax Assessor placed the valustion at a certain figure, while the Board of County Commissioners, sitting as a Board of Equalizers, held that a lesser amount should prevail.
The Tax Assessor of Franklin County, Florida, for the year 1950 determined and fixed the valuations of the 6,912 acres of wild and unimproved lands owned by C. C. Land and J. A. Shuler situated in Franklin County, Florida, for assessment of taxes at the total sum of $33,369.00. The owners paid for the same lands during the year 1949 the total sum of $42,500, and the proposed assessment by the Assessor in the total sum of $33,500 was a sum not in excess of the full cash value. The Board of County Commissioners of Franklin County, sitting as a Board of Equalization, was requested to approve and confirm the proposed assessment of the Tax Assessor on the Land-Shuler land as described in the transcript at the sum of $33,369.
The Tax Assessor of Franklin County, for the year 1950, determined and fixed the valuation of the 160,814 acres of wild and unimproved lands owned by A. S. Mitchell situated in Franklin County for assessment of taxes at the total sum of $481,977, and the proposed assessment was not in excess of the full cash value thereof. The Board of County Commissioners of Franklin County, in July, 1950, sitting as a Board of Equalizers, was requested to approve and confirm the proposed assessment as made by the Tax Assessor on the described lands of A. S. Mitchell for the year 1950 at the sum of $481,977.
The Board of County Commissioners and the Tax Assessor of Franklin County, in July, 1950, sat as an Equalization Board, pursuant to law, and heard and considered complaints on the question of the valuations of property as submitted by the Tax Assessor for taxation purposes for the year 1950. The land owners, parties to this litibation, appeared in person or by counsel and protested the valuations as being excessive as placed on lands for taxation purposes owned by each of them for the year 1950, as proposed by the Tax Assessor. It was the contention of the Tax Assessor that each of the complaints was without merit and the valuations placed on the properties by him were their full cash value, as provided for in Section 193.06, F.S.A.
The reocrd reflects other and subsequent meeting of the Board of County Commissioners, sitting as an Equalization Board, at which the valuation of property as proposed by the Tax Assessor were studied and carefully considered. Different members of the Board visited some of the property in question in different sections of the county in their common effort to arrive at a correct valuation for taxation purposes. The Board obtained and accepted the services of an individual well informed as to the values of this class of property situated in Franklin County then being considered. On September 11, 1950, the Equalization Board entered its order, thereby reducing the assessments for taxation purposes on the cut-over lands owned by Land and Shuler situated in Franklin County from the sum of $33,369, as proposed by the Tax Assessor, to the sum of $27,736. Likewise entered a similar order which reduced the proposed assessments of the Tax Assessor on lands owned by A. S. Mitchell from $481,977 to the sum of $286,195. The Tax Assessor pointed out that A. S. Mitchell paid for these lands the sum of $646,814.
Section 193.27, F.S.A., provides that the Board of County Commissioners may equalize the assessment of the real estate or personal property in their respective counties, and for that purpose may raise or lower the value fixed by the County Tax Assessor of taxes on any particular piece of real estate, or item or items of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Beshaw v. State
...1987); Bradley v. McDermott, 466 So.2d 1108 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Caverly v. State, 436 So.2d 191 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); compare Hoffman v. Land, 55 So.2d 806 (Fla.1951); Conner v. Mid-Florida Growers, Inc., 541 So.2d 1252, 1256 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); City of Miami Beach v. State ex rel. Pickin' C......
-
Dick v. State ex rel. Harris, 3933
...of the Board were in accordance with the general principles approved in Sanders v. Crapps, Fla.1950, 45 So.2d 484, and Hoffman v. Land, Fla.1951, 55 So.2d 806. As was stated in the latter decision (55 So.2d at 809): 'The best informed men in the past have differed on the question of value o......
-
Stiles v. Brown, 34617
...only to equalize. Armstrong v. State, 69 So.2d 319, text 321, 322 (Fla.). See also Sanders v. Crapps, 45 So.2d 484 (Fla.), and Hoffman v. Land, 55 So.2d 806 (Fla.). In Tyson v. Lanier, 156 So.2d 833, 837 (Fla.) it was held correct to conclude '* * * that 'just valuation' as provided in the ......
-
Armstrong v. State ex rel. Beaty
...have the question of reducing every piece of property in the county based upon complaints of a general nature. The case of Hoffman v. Land, Fla., 55 So.2d 806, 807, is also cited by the appellees as sustaining their position. This case is similar to the case of Sanders v. Crapps, supra, and......