Sandstrom v. City of Fort Lauderdale

• Decision Date: 11 October 1961
• Docket Number: No. 2207,2207
• Citation: 133 So.2d 755
• Parties: Ray SANDSTROM, William T. Quick, Attorneys, and all other persons similarly situated, Appellants, v. CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE, Forida, a municipal corporation, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 755

133 So.2d 755

Ray SANDSTROM, William T. Quick, Attorneys, and all other persons similarly situated, Appellants, v. CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE, Forida, a municipal corporation, Appellee.

No. 2207.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Oct. 11, 1961.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 6, 1961.

Sandstrom & Hodge, Fort Lauderdale, for appellants.

Francis K. Buckley and Ronald B. Sladon, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

KANNER, Judge.

Plaintiffs, objecting to a $50 per person license tax levied pursuant to chapter 23 of the municipal ordinances of the City of Fort Lauderdale upon attorneys having offices within the city limits, filed suit on their own behalf as attorneys practicing there and on behalf of 'all other persons similarly situated' to enjoin enforcement of the ordinance insofar as it imposed the protested tax. The court by final decree denied injunction and dismissed the complaint. Plaintiffs improvidently appealed to the Supreme Court, which, in conformity with rule 2.1, subd. a(5)(d), Florida Appellate Rules, 31 F.S.A., ordered the cause transferred to this court as the one having appellate jurisdiction.

By the complaint, it was alleged, essentially, that Article V, section 23, of the constitution of this state places exclusive jurisdiction of the admission and regulation of attorneys in the Supreme Court; that plaintiffs are required to be members of the Florida Bar, are required to pay annual dues of $25, and are subject to regulation by it; that the sum of $50 per plaintiff as occupational license is arbitrary and capriciously fixed, with no relation to any regulation of plaintiffs, since the regulation is exclusively in the Supreme Court. It was further complained that defendant furnishes no facilities or other services to plaintiffs as does the Florida Bar; that in view of annual Florida Bar dues of $25, county and state occupational licenses of $25.25, and the amounts assessed for such licenses in other municipalities of the county, the sum required is excessive, unreasonable, and arbitrary, so that the ordinance so far as it fixes the amount of the occupational license fee is void. Asserting that defendant had threatened to issue warrant of arrest of plaintiffs for violation of the ordinance because of nonpayment of the license fee, plaintiffs prayed that the court issue an injunction, both temporary and permanent, restraining the defendant from enforcing the ordinance insofar as it exacts the occupational license in the named sum.

The chancellor through his final decree determined that the ordinance was enacted for the purpose of raising revenue and not for regulation under the police power, that the occupational license tax was neither excessive, unreasonable, nor arbitrary, and that the ordinance did not conflict with the constitutional provision, Article V, section 23, F.S.A.

Plaintiffs' assault upon the ordinance in this appeal urges that it is regulatory and hence should be restricted in amount to the costs incident to the regulation required, that it is unreasonable in the amount of the license fee imposed, and that it is in contravention of Article V, section 23, of the Constitution of Florida, relating to the admission and discipline of attorneys.

Section 23-40(189) of the municipal ordinance provides in part that each individual engaged in certain professions must acquire a separate license for each classification desired, that such license shall be nontransferable, and that the fee shall be $50. The subsection lists 26 separate professions, including that of attorney, and provides a 'catchall' heading designated 'unclassified profession,' with the same fee of $50 being required for each.

The charter of the City of Fort Lauderdale specifically provides that the city may 'tax' professions. It states that, as to occupational licenses, the city shall have full power and authority to license and tax any and all businesses, occupations, and professions carried on within the corporate limts of the city, to classify and define them for the purpose of imposing occupational license taxes or fees, and to impose on such classfications reasonable occupational license taxes. It is moreover provided that the amount of such license fees shall not be dependent upon nor related to either the general state occupational license for similar classfications or the amounts allowed under the general laws for municipalities incorporated under the general state law.

A municipal license for revenue and one for regulation under the police power are set apart by distinguishing characteristics. A license for revenue is a tax and should be construed under the tenets and rules governing the authority to tax, while one for regulation is under the police power and is concerned with the protection of the health, morals, safety, or general welfare of a community. Where power to license is granted for revenue purposes, the amount of the tax is within the discretion and judgment of the municipal authorities; if granted merely for regulation under the police power, the construction is narrowed to exercise of the power as a neans of regulation and does not fundamentally embrace use of it for revenue purposes. 23 Fla.Jur., Municipal Corportations, section...