Hollywood Jaycees v. State, Dept. of Revenue

• Decision Date: 20 November 1974
• Docket Number: No. 45478,45478
• Parties: HOLLYWOOD JAYCEES and Hollywood Hills Private School, Appellants, v. STATE of Florida, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, et al., Appellees.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

Page 109

306 So.2d 109

HOLLYWOOD JAYCEES and Hollywood Hills Private School, Appellants, v. STATE of Florida, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, et al., Appellees.

No. 45478.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Nov. 20, 1974.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 4, 1975.

Jerome M. Rosenblum, Hollywood, for appellants.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Stephen E. Mitchell, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Gaylord A. Wood, Jr., Fort Lauderdale, for appellees.

ERVIN, Justice.

The Greater Hollywood Junior Chamber of Commerce; E. L. Bailey, Modena Bailey, and Mr. and Mrs. J. W. Rogler doing business as Hollywood Hills Private School, Appellants, appeal from an interlocutory order of the Circuit Court of Broward County entered April 8, 1974 denying petition for a rehearing which directly upheld the validity of Section 193.122(1), Florida Statutes, as amended by Section 9, Chapter 73--172, Laws of Florida. We have jurisdiction to hear the appeal by treating it as sounding in certiorari under Article V, Section 3(b) (3), State Constitution, F.S.A., which authorizes our discretionary review by certiorari of 'any interlocutory order passing upon a matter which upon final judgment would be directly appealable to the supreme court,' and 'may issue writs of certiorari to commissions established by general law having statewide jurisdiction.' See Burned v. Seaboard Coastline Railroad Company (Fla.1974), 290 So.2d 13. The Circuit Court has also indicated a Supreme Court decision is needed by its stay order reciting further proceedings in the cause are stayed 'until there is an authoritative decision of the Supreme Court interpreting the constitutionality of the statute in question . . .'

The Appellees are State of Florida, Department of Revenue; William Markham, Broward County Tax Assessor, and Lester Bauer, Broward County Tax Collector.

The principal question on this review is the validity of the said statute as applied in this case by the Department of Revenue (DOR). The statute reads as follows:

'. . . If the board of tax adjustment makes any changes in the assessor's roll it shall forward to the department its specific and detailed findings for all changes made by the board to substantiate that the evidence presented was sufficient to overcome the asessor's presumption of correctness. The board shall reduce its finding of fact to writing, in each case stating the reasons for which the assessor's determination was overturned. The department shall invalidate any change by the board if it finds the change lacks legal sufficiency or that the evidence presented was insufficient to overcome the assessor's presumption of correctness.' (Emphasis added.)

The salient facts are: Each year in the past Appellants have received tax-exempt status for their property located in Broward County, Florida, but for the year 1973 Appellants missed the April 1st deadline for filing their applications for said tax exemption due to unforeseeable circumstances. The Appellants subsequently applied to the Broward County Board of Tax Adjustment for the requested relief whereupon they were given a full hearing in compliance with due process of law.

At the conclusions of said hearings, Appellants were subsequently afforded the requested relief and were granted a tax exemption for the year 1973.

Several months thereafter, during the month of October 1973, Appellants received a short notice from the County Comptroller, Mr. Jack Wheeler, stating that the Department of Revenue of the State of Florida reversed the action taken by the Board of Tax Adjustment whereupon the previously-granted tax exemption was invalidated.

At no time were Appellants given notice of hearing, nor in fact was notice of hearing ever sent out to either of the parties; Appellants were never given opportunity to be heard nor to confront witnesses nor to challenge the action taken by the DOR in any manner.

At no time has the DOR ever officially notified Appellants of the action taken invalidating their tax exemptions. Additionally, Appellants have not received a written order containing findings of fact or conclusions of law so as to explain why they lost their tax exemption. The fact that there was no notice of hearing given Appellants nor opportunity to be heard, and the fact that there have been no findings of fact or conclusions of law to support the action taken by the DOR have all been admitted in the trial court (Circuit Court).

Appellants herein timely filed a petition for declaratory and injunctive relief in the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Broward County, Florida, requesting a declaration stating that the action taken by the DOR was unconstitutional since there was no notice of hearing or opportunity to be heard and requesting that the Court enjoin the defendants from collecting the assessed taxes.

Appellants herein filed a motion for summary judgment attacking the constitutionality of Section 193.122(1), F.S., as amended by Section 9, Chapter 73--172, Laws of Florida.

The constitutional attack was based on several grounds; namely, that the statute is invalid since it denies Appellants the right to notice of hearing, opportunity to be heard, opportunity to confront adverse witnesses, as well as the right to receive findings of fact or conclusions of law.

Further, the Circuit Court found the action taken by the DOR in reversing the grant of tax exemptions to Appellants to be valid even though the Circuit Court specifically found that there were no findings of fact or conclusions of law stated by the DOR to support its action.

Lastly, the Circuit Court ruled in its order dated April 8, 1974, that the Administrative Procedure Act does not apply to actions taken by the DOR pursuant to Section 120.21(1) of the Florida Statutes and that such statute does not deny Appellants either due process or equal protection of the laws.

It is from this order that Appellants seek relief.

It is our conclusion that the statute was unconstitutionally applied in this case by the DOR in that no notice and hearing were initially afforded Appellants by the DOR in its procedures invalidating the tax exemption granted Appellants by the County Board of Tax Adjustment, nor did the DOR make any written findings setting forth the basis for its...