Smith v. Voight

Decision Date20 December 1946
Citation28 So.2d 426,158 Fla. 366
PartiesSMITH, Tax Assessor, et al. v. VOIGHT.
CourtFlorida Supreme Court

Appeal from Circuit Court, Volusia County; W. May Walker judge.

Charles W Luther, of Daytona Beach, for appellants.

Murray Sams, of DeLand, for appellee.

ADAMS, Justice.

Fred R. Voight applied to the Tax Assessor of Volusia County for homestead exemption under Section 7 of Article 10, Florida Constitution, which reads:

'Every person who has the legal title or beneficial title in equity to real property in this State and who resides thereon and in good faith makes the same his or her permanent home, or the permanent home of another or others legally or naturally dependent upon said person, shall be entitled to an exemption from all taxation, except for assessments for special benefits, up to the assessed valuation of Five Thousand Dollars on the said home and contiguous real property as defined in Article 10, Section 1, of the Constitution, for the year 1939 and thereafter. Said title may be held by the entireties, jointly or in common with others, and said exemption may be apportioned among such of the owners as shall reside thereon, as their respective interests shall appear, but no such exemption of more than Five Thousand Dollars shall be allowed to any one person or any one dwelling house, nor shall the amount of the exemption allowed any person exceed the proportionate assessed valuation based on the interest owned by such person. The Legislature may prescribe appropriate and reasonable laws regulating the manner of establishing the right to said exemption.'

The Tax Assessor refused the application because appellant was not a citizen of the United States. On review before the County Commissioners the ruling was affirmed whereupon Voight filed suit for a declarative decree naming the Tax Assessor, Tax Collector and Comptroller as defendants.

Decree was entered on the bill for Voight and defendants appealed.

To demonstrate the correctness of the decree we call attention to the elimination of certain language in the above quoted amendment from that which existed in the former Section 7 of Article 10, namely: '* * * to every head of a family who is a citizen of and resides in the State of Florida * * *.'

Steuart v State ex rel. Dolcimascolo, 119 Fla. 117, 161 So. 378 was decided under the superseded section and is of no help here other than to obviously signify a purpose in the change noted in the later amendment.

See Croker v. Croker, 5 Cir., 51 F.2d 11, and Biennial Report of the Attorney General, 1939-1940, page 438.

The decree is correct and is affirmed.

TERRELL and BUFORD, JJ., concur.

TERRELL and BUFORD, JJ., concur. specially).

It appears by the record in this cause that Fred R. Voight and wife, Kate Voight, on August 17, 1944, acquired by purchase and became the owners of an estate by the entireties of approximately twenty acres of land in Volusia County (not situated within the corporate limits of any municipality), and the parties lived and made their permanent home upon the property. They seasonably applied to the taxing authorities of Volusia County for a homestead tax exemption of $5,000 on the property for the taxing year 1946 under the provisions of Section 7 of Article 10 of the Constitution of Florida adopted and approved by the voters of Florida at the 1938 General Election. The application of the Voights for the $5,000 tax exemption was refused or denied, largely upon the theory that Voight was not a citizen of the United States.

Voight exhibited his bill of complaint in the Circuit Court of Volusia County against the taxing authorities of the County and Honorable J M. Lee, State Comptroller, and contended that it was not...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Reinish v. Clark, 1D98-3973.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • July 20, 2000
    ...the United States to be eligible for the homestead tax exemption, and there is no durational residency requirement. See Smith v. Voight, 158 Fla. 366, 28 So.2d 426 (1946). The New Jersey Supreme Court's lucid analysis of an equal protection challenge to the New Jersey Homestead Rebate Act i......
  • Pawley v. Pawley
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • April 6, 1950
    ...prerequisite for divorce and neither of the words 'citizen' or 'citizenship' can be read into our statute. Compare Smith v. Voight, 158 Fla. 366, 28 So.2d 426. Much has been said about the public policy of Florida with reference to the subject of divorce. Some hold the view that such policy......
  • Garcia v. Andonie
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • October 4, 2012
    ...a citizen of and resides in the State of Florida.” Fla. HJR 20 (1933) (proposed Fla. Const. art. X, § 7). See also Smith v. Voight, 158 Fla. 366, 28 So.2d 426, 426 (1946). This language was removed by constitutional revision approved by the voters in a general election in 1938, effective fo......
  • Cooke, Matter of, 60669
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • March 4, 1982
    ...McNayr to be pertinent. There, we said: Citizenship is not a prerequisite for claiming homestead exemption. See Smith, Tax Assessor et al. v. Voight, 158 Fla. 366, 28 So.2d 426. Appellants have made every requirement for the exemption claimed within their power, and thus the question arises......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles

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