Sparkman v. State ex rel. Scott

• Citation: 58 So.2d 431
• Parties: SPARKMAN v. STATE ex rel. SCOTT.
• Decision Date: 22 April 1952
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Florida

Page 431

58 So.2d 431

SPARKMAN v. STATE ex rel. SCOTT.

Supreme Court of Florida, en Banc.

April 22, 1952.

Wm. C. McLean, Tampa, for appellant.

Henry H. Cole, Tampa, for appellee.

SEBRING, Chief Justice.

The appeal brings here for review the question of the constitutional validity of chapter 26899, Laws of Florida 1951, now section 192.121, Florida Statutes 1949, as amended, F.S.A.

Section 7, Article X of the Florida Constitution, as amended, F.S.A., provides:

'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 challenged statute, chapter 26899, prescribes in substance, that no person shall be entitled to an exemption of his or her homestead, unless such person at the time of making application for such exemption shall have been a legal resident of the State of Florida for the period of at least one year prior thereto.

The dominant question on the appeal is whether the fixing in the statute of the residential requirement of one year as a condition precedent to the right of an owner to claim homestead exemption is within the authority granted to the Legislature by the last sentence of Section 7, Article X of the Constitution; i. e. to 'prescribe appropriate and reasonable laws regulating the manner of establishing the right to said exemption'; or is an unlawful attempt by the Legislature to alter, contract, or enlarge Section 7, Article X, by legislative enactment, contrary to the express pronouncements of this court that 'Express or implied provisions of the Constitution cannot be altered, contracted or enlarged by legislative enactments.' See State ex rel....