Smythe v. City of Bradenton

• Decision Date: 14 November 1941
• Citation: 148 Fla. 461,4 So.2d 694
• Parties: SMYTHE et al. v. CITY OF BRADENTON.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

4 So.2d 694

148 Fla. 461

SMYTHE et al. v. CITY OF BRADENTON.

Florida Supreme Court

November 14, 1941

Rehearing Denied Dec. 9, 1941.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Manatee County; W.T Harrison, judge.

G. P Smythe, of Bradenton, for appellants.

Blakey & Daniel, of Bradenton, for appellee.

BUFORD, Justice.

From decree foreclosing tax liens, defendant appeals.

Appellants' first contention is that because Chapter 9692, Special Acts of the Legislature of 1923, being the Charter Act of the City, in Section 58 thereof provides: 'Under this charter, the fiscal year shall begin the first day of July and end the thirtieth (30) day of the subsequent June of each year, beginning with the year A. D. Nineteen Hundred Twenty-Three', and because it appears from the tax rolls that the taxes for which the alleged liens accrued were assessed for the years 1929, 1930, 1931 and 1932 and so on until and including the year 1938, the assessment is contrary to the provisions of Section 3, Article IX of our Constitution and, therefore, void, the contention being that such assessments were for calendar years, and not for the fiscal year as defined in the charter. The contention is without merit. Under the terms of the charter the first fiscal year thereunder began from July 1st 1923. If years referred to in tax rolls are fiscal years then the designation in the roll as the tax roll for 1923 was sufficient to identify it as the assessment roll beginning July 1st, 1923, and a like designation of the tax rolls for the subsequent years were sufficient. When the tax roll showed the assessment for the year 1929 it must be taken to have meant the tax year 1929, which when read with the charter provisions, supra, might have been construed to mean that period beginning July 1st, 1929, and ending June 30th, 1930, if there had been any ordinance enacted rendering such construction necessary.

There is nothing in the record here to show that the assessment rolls were ever applied to the fiscal year as fixed in the charter. Whether or not the roll for 1923 was authorized is not before us for determination. The roll for 1923 not being specifically authorized for that part of such year remaining after the enactment of chapter 9692, supra, might have presented a serious question.

There is, however, a provision in the charter that the assessment roll shall be prepared substantially in accordance with the laws of Florida governing state and county assessments.

It seems to us there is no inconsistency between the provisions of the charter with reference to the fiscal year and recognition by the city of a tax period corresponding with the calendar year. The fiscal year of the state by the provisions of section 1343, C.G.L., 1927, begins on the 1st day of July and ends on the 30th day of June, and under Section 2305, C.G.L., 1927, the fiscal year of the counties commences on the 1st day of October and ends on the 30th day of September, although all property is subject to taxation for state and county purposes on the 1st day of January of each year.

It is significant that state and county taxes assessed for the calendar year become delinquent on April 1st and that the City charter, Chapter 9692, supra, contains the provisions that if the taxes are not paid in the city before the first Monday in April, 'or by such further time as the Council may have grauted [granted] for the payment of taxes', section 20, machinery of the city is set in motion for enforcing collection.

It is next contended that the description as contained in the assessment roll is too vague and uncertain to constitute a basis for the assessment. The description shows 'City of Bradenton, Florida, Real Property Assessment. Descriptions of lands in Section _____ Township 34 South Range 17 East, Lots 1, 2, 3, Blk A, of Smith's Add. and fill on N to Blvd.' It is not shown that this is not a proper description of property subject to taxation in the City of Bradenton, Florida.

In fact, the defendant Smythe during the trial identified the property in propounding a question to a witness in the following language:

'Are you acquainted with a piece of property on the waterfront north of the Manatee River Hotel, and described as Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block A in the Smith Addition, and fill on North to the boulevard?'

...