Osborn v. Yeager

• Decision Date: 16 August 1963
• Docket Number: No. 3596,3596
• Citation: 155 So.2d 742
• Parties: V. H. OSBORN, sometimes known as Virgil H. Osborn, Appellant, v. Mrs. E. B. YEAGER, as Tax Collector for Charlotte County, Florida, and Ray E. Green, as Comptroller of the State of Florida, Appellees.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 742

155 So.2d 742

V. H. OSBORN, sometimes known as Virgil H. Osborn, Appellant, v. Mrs. E. B. YEAGER, as Tax Collector for Charlotte County, Florida, and Ray E. Green, as Comptroller of the State of Florida, Appellees.

No. 3596.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Aug. 16, 1963.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 29, 1963.

E. D. Treadwell, Jr., of Treadwell & Treadwell, Arcadia, for appellant.

Leroy Hill, Punta Gorda, for appellees.

SHANNON, Judge.

The appellant, plaintiff below, filed his complaint in the Circuit Court for Charlotte County, Florida, naming as defendants the Tax Collector of Charlotte County, Florida, and Ray E. Green, as Comptroller of the State of Florida. In the complaint he alleged that certain parcels of land were over-assessed for the year 1961, and prayed that the collection of taxes be enjoined. The defendants answered, putting in issue the allegations in the complaint, and after final hearing a decree was entered in favor of defendants. It is from this decree, as amended, that the plaintiff appeals.

The appellant poses two questions to be answered by this court. The first question is: 'Within the purview of Article 9, Sections 1 and 3, of the Constitution of Florida and 193.06 and 193.22, Florida Statutes, commanding the assessment of real property on the basis of a just valuation and its full cash value, is an assessment valid which is based upon an acknowledged ignorance of the true cash value and is admittedly geared to speculative investments in other parts of the county?' The second question is: 'Where a taxpayer alleges gross over-assessment and substantiates his allegations with proof, may he prevail without the additional burden of showing discrimination against him?' However, both of these questions proceed upon a premise which is untenable, and the real question, is, as we see it--Did the tax assessor assess the real estate herein in accordance with the Constitution of Florida and the statutes pertaining to assessment? From the evidence in the record the trial court found that the assessments were validly made in accordance with those laws, and with this finding we agree. There is some testimony offered on behalf of the plaintiff which would seem to indicate that the tax assessor did not use a valid procedure to assess these lands, but the over-whelming weight of the testimony is to the effect that he did. Charlotte County had employed Hunnicutt and Associates, an appraisal firm, to re-appraise property for the year 1961, but this fact is no deterrent to the actual valid assessment made by the tax assessor. See Freeze v. County of Pinellas, Fla.1962, 146 So.2d 97. He used the advice of Hunnicutt, but the actual figures on assessment, whether they agreed with Hunnicutt or not, were his own. There is testimony in the record that shows conclusively that he did not rely upon Hunnicutt in arriving at his figures. It is also true that on some parcels of the plaintiff's land the assessments seem unusually high, but when the record is studied we can see how the tax assessor would be justified in making the assessments as he did.

Considerable leeway and discretion is allowed a tax assessor in his arrival at the 'full cash value' of taxable property. In the much cited case of Schleman v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company, 1942, 151 Fla. 96, 9 So.2d 197, our Supreme Court stated:

'We are fully aware of the difficulty of fixing with certainty the full cash value of property and the great variance in values set by persons of like experience and judgment, all making estimates conscientiously. Because of this inexactitude considerable leeway should be granted the official whose duty it is to make assessments and because of his position his valuations should not be easily disturbed * * *.'

Attempts have been made, of course, to define the proper methods of assessing full cash value. But a general set of rules will simply not suffice for each particular situation and each particular piece of property. Nevertheless, a helpful discussion on this subject is set forth in 31 Fla.Jur., Taxation, Sec. 265, as follows:

'For purposes of taxation, the value of property is determined by taking into account all favorable and unfavorable circumstances that would control the admeasurement of its present market value were it placed on the market to be sold by the owner. If similar property is commonly bought and sold, the price which it brings is the best test of the value. But where an established market is nonexistent, the process of valuation must comprehend not only one but all of the influencing factors going to make up the intrinsic value. Formulae may be authorized as a detail of the method of arriving at the ultimate conclusion as to value, but valuation for tax purposes does not depend on matters of formulae alone.'

See also, Hillsborough County v. Knight & Wall Co., 1943, 153 Fla. 346, 14 So.2d 703; City of Tampa v. Colgan, 1935, 121 Fla. 218 163 So. 577; and (1949-1950) Atty.Gen.Rep. 233.

In ...