Smith v. Ring, N--552

• Decision Date: 03 August 1971
• Docket Number: No. N--552,N--552
• Citation: 250 So.2d 913
• Parties: J. Pierce SMITH, as Tax Assessor for Alachua County, Florida, et al., Appellants, v. Alfred A. RING, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 913

250 So.2d 913

J. Pierce SMITH, as Tax Assessor for Alachua County, Florida, et al., Appellants, v. Alfred A. RING, Appellee.

No. N--552.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Aug. 3, 1971.

Chandler, O'Neal, Carlisle, Avera, Gray & Lang, Gainesville, for appellants.

James S. Wershow, Gainesville, for appellee.

WIGGINTON, Acting Chief Judge.

Defendant taxing officials of Alachua County seek appellate review of an adverse final judgment finding that the lands owned by plaintiff were used solely and primarily during the year 1969 for bona fide agricultural purposes and therefore entitled to an agricultural zoning classification for the purpose of taxation.

Appellee purchased the 80-acre parcel of land in question in 1961 and since that time has devoted it to the raising of livestock. On or before April 1, 1969, appellee made a return to the county tax assessor, an ex officio member of the county zoning board, stating that his land was being used for a bona fide agricultural purpose, namely the raising of livestock, and requested that it be zoned as agricultural for the current tax year. On July 1, 1969, the Alachua County agricultural zoning board denied appellee's request and zoned the land as nonagricultural. The equalization board of Alachua County sustained the zoning board's determination and refused to rezone it in accordance with appellee's request.

The statute under which appellee proceeded in his attempt to secure an agricultural zoning classification of his property for tax purposes is as follows:

'No lands shall be zoned as agricultural lands unless a return is made as required by law which shall state that said lands on January 1 of that year were used primarily for agricultural purposes, and the board, before so zoning said lands, may require the taxpayer of his representative to furnish the board such information as may reasonably be required to establish that said lands were actually used for a bona fide agricultural purpose. All lands which are used primarily for bona fide agricultural purposes shall be zoned agricultural. * * *' ¹

Appellants challenge the correctness of the trial court's judgment on the contention that appellee landowner has failed to carry the burden of proving that his land was not purchased and being held as a speculative investment or that he was utilizing it for a bona fide agricultural purpose in the raising of livestock. They support their position by reference to the recent case of Walden v. Borden Company ² in which a summary judgment in favor of appellee Borden Company was reversed. From the record in that case the Supreme Court found the existence of a genuine issue of material facts on the question of whether the lands of Borden were being used primarily in a bona fide agricultural operation on which its claim to an agricultural zoning classification depended.

In its final judgment rendered in the case sub judice the trial court found from the evidence that prior to the tax year in question appellee had rented his land to legitimate cattlemen who ran cattle on the property and followed the acceptable agricultural practices of mowing and fertilizing the pasture. The evidence fairly establishes that the entire tract was fenced and fifty acres thereof cleared and planted to improved pasture while the remainder of the parcel consisted of unimproved pasture and woodland. The grazing lease for...