McNayr v. State ex rel. Dupont Plaza Center, Inc.

Decision Date01 July 1964
Docket NumberNo. 33538,33538
Citation166 So.2d 142
PartiesIrving G. McNAYR, as County Manager of Dade County, Florida, et al., Appellants, v. The STATE of Florida, on the relation of DUPONT PLAZA CENTER, INC., et al., Appellees.
CourtFlorida Supreme Court

Darrey A. Davis, Miami, for appellants.

Sibley, Grusmark, Giblin, King & Levenson and Marion E. Sibley, Miami Beach, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a final judgment in the Circuit Court of Dade County, Florida, awarding a peremptory writ of mandamus to the appellees here, petitioners below, requiring the taxing authorities in Dade County to forthwith begin and within a convenient period of time complete the tax roll of said County for the year 1964 containing all taxable property in the County at just valuation and to thereafter comply with all lawful duties imposed upon or required of said taxing authorities, including the completion of a tax roll for the County at just valuation. The peremptory writ of mandamus issued in accordance with the final judgment required the proper officials of the County to begin within a reasonable and convenient period of time to complete the County tax roll of said County for the year 1964 and to thereafter comply with all duties imposed upon such officials by law and to make known to the trial court on or before 15 July 1964 how said officials have performed the commands required of them. Omitting formal parts, the final judgment and peremptory writ entered by the able chancellor below are as follows, viz:

(FINAL JUDGMENT)

'This cause came on for trial upon the Alternative Writ of Mandamus filed by the State of Florida, ex rel. Dupont Plaza Center, Inc., and the Return to the Alternative Writ of Mandamus made by the several respondents, including the County Commissioners of Dade County, Florida, Irving G. McNayr, as County Manager of Dade County, Florida, Sam Elcook as Tax Assessor of Dade County, Florida, and E. W. Wright, as Tax Collector of Dade County, Florida, and the Reply of the Relator to the Return to Alternative Writ of Mandamus. Testimony and devidence was submitted by the parties. Counsel for the Relator and for the Respondents fully argued the cause. The Court being duly advised in the premises, the Court finds:

'(A) That the Tax Assessor, Sam Elcook, has ascertained and determined the just valuation of all property subject to ad valorem taxes in Dade County, Florida, pursuant to the duty imposed upon him by the Constitution and laws of the State of Florida. He is now engaged in composing a tax roll for the year 1964 which will place said property on the tax roll at 50% of the just valuation ascertained by him as aforesaid. Moreover, the County Auditor, Mr. Blake, has produced before the Court a survey carefully accomplished by him at the direction of the County officials which establishes that the said property is in fact placed on the tax roll at a valuation of one-half of its just and ascertained value as aforesaid. Mr. Blake's survey supports the Tax Assessor in his conclusion that the valuation on all property in Dade County, Florida, subject to ad valorem taxes is uniform and equal, but that it is carried on the tax roll at only one-half of its just value as fixed by the County Tax Assessor. This method of fixing the valuation of property in Dade County, Florida, is contrary to law and is discriminatory, in that it increases the homestead exemption fixed by the Constitution at $5,000.00 to the actual sum of $10,000.00. This improper method of fixing valuation wholly exempts over 35,000 homestead parcels subject to taxation if their just valuation were placed on the tax roll and reduces the taxes of all parcels of homestead exemptions, the total of which exceeds 185,000. Thus, the tax roll now being composed by the Tax Assessor is obviously discriminatory and its net effect is to require the other property in Dade County, Florida, to bear the tax burden that justly rests upon parcels which have the benefit of homestead exemption.

'The Supreme Court of Florida has said that this method adopted by the Dade County Tax Assessor of fixing the valuation on the tax roll is untenable and its adoption by the Tax Assessor is not in compliance with and does not discharge his statutory duties in composing his tax roll. See, Cosens [Cosen] Investment v. Overstreet, 17 So.2d 788; Schleman v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Co., 9 So.2d 197.

'(B) The Dade County Tax Assessor testified that just value of property may be accomplished by doubling the present values fixed on the tax roll and this may be done without significant delay and its accomplishment is a relatively simple matter. The Tax Assessor having arrived at the just valuation of property for his tax roll does not have the discretion to adopt 50% of it as the value for ad valorem tax purposes. 'His discretion ran out at that point' where he arrived at just valuation. See Green etc. v. Walter, Etc., [Fla.,] 161 So.2d 830.

'Mandamus is the appropriate writ to require the Tax Assessor to correct his tax roll as is here indicated. See, [State ex rel. Kent Corporation] v. Board of County Commissioners of Broward County, 37 So.2d 252; Green v. Walter, supra.

'A peremptory writ of mandamus requiring the Tax Assessor to assess at 100% of just value and not at 50% as now appearing on the tax roll, in no wise controls the Tax Assessor's discretion.

'It is thereupon

'ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the Relator, State of Florida ex rel. Dupont Plaza Center, Inc. do have and recover from the Respondents hereto as the taxing authorities of Dade County, Florida, judgment for the peremptory writ of mandamus requiring said taxing authorities and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 cases
  • Killen v. Logan County Com'n
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • 2 Julio 1982
    ...100 percent of property's market value. E. Ingraham Co. v. Town of Bristol, 144 Conn. 374, 132 A.2d 563 (1957) (statute); McNayr v. State, 166 So.2d 142 (Fla.1964) (statute); Russman v. Luckett, 391 S.W.2d 694 (Ky.1965) (constitution); Bettigole v. Assessor of Springfield, 343 Mass. 223, 17......
  • Rocky Mountain Oil and Gas Ass'n v. State Bd. of Equalization
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • 31 Diciembre 1987
    ...time has now elapsed and these [petitioners] are entitled to have their clear, legal right enforced." McNayr v. State ex rel. DuPont Plaza Center, Inc., Fla., 166 So.2d 142, 145 (1964); Dore v. Kinnear, 79 Wash.2d 755, 489 P.2d 898 (1971). We would also discern that a plan can be legislativ......
  • Tug Valley Recovery Center, Inc. v. Mingo County Commission
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • 13 Diciembre 1979
    ...Company v. Clement, 57 Tenn. 54, 415 S.W.2d 146 (1967), Cert. denied by Supreme Court May 15, 1967; McNayr v. State ex rel. Dupont Plaza Center, Inc., 166 So.2d 142 (Fla.1964); State v. Board of Tax Appeals, 175 Ohio St. 410, 195 N.E.2d 908 (1964); Village of Ridgefield Park v. Bergen Count......
  • Russman v. Luckett
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky
    • 8 Junio 1965
    ...of Taxation, 31 N.J. 420, 157 A.2d 829 (1960); Bettigole v. Assessors of Springfield, 343 Mass. 223, 178 N.E.2d 10 (1961); McNayr v. State, Fla., 166 So.2d 142 (1964); State ex rel. Park Investment Co. v. Board of Tax Appeals, 175 Ohio St. 410, 195 N.E.2d 908 (1964); Pierce v. Green, 229 Io......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT