Tegder v. Snelson Inv. Co.

• Decision Date: 15 October 1943
• Citation: 153 Fla. 591,15 So.2d 296
• Court: Florida Supreme Court
• Parties: TEGDER et al. v. SNELSON INV. CO.

15 So.2d 296

153 Fla. 591

TEGDER et al. v. SNELSON INV. CO.

Florida Supreme Court

October 15, 1943

Appeal from Circuit Court, Citrus County; F. R. Hocker judge.

Charles A Savage, of Ocala, for appellants.

C. V McClurg, Smith & Petteway, and Gordon Petteway, all of Lakeland, for appellee.

SEBRING, Justice.

On September 3 1928, certain lands belonging to appellants were sold by the Tax Collector of Citrus County for unpaid taxes levied and assessed for the year 1927. One J. W. Parket was the purchaser of the tax certificates at the sale. On June 26 1941, J. W. Parker sold and assigned the tax certificates to appellee. Approximately one month later appellee filed suit to foreclose the tax certificates. In due course appellants filed their answer alleging, inter alia, that the sale of said lands for the nonpayment of the 1927 taxes was illegal and void for that appellants' lands were wild and unimproved lands; that in making the assessment of properties in the county for the year 1927 the assessor adopted the 50% rule assessing improved and urban properties at 50% of the actual value, but in assessing lands of the kind and character of the lands involved in this case the assessor did not use the 50% rule but adopted an arbitrary rule based upon the location of the lands with reference to roads, highways and towns and having no relation to actual value, resulting in an excessive overvaluation of the appellants' lands.

The answer also alleged that the method used by the assessor resulted in such lands being valued at an excessive, arbitrary, and unreasonable price and amounted in law to a fraud on appellants; that appellee purchased said certificates and took assignments thereof with full knowledge of these facts and for a nominal consideration much less than their face value and consequently should be allowed to recover, if at all, only such amount as the court should find had actually been paid by appellee for the certificates.

On motion of the plaintiff below the portions of the answer here referred to were stricken. Thereafter, testimony was taken on the issues made by the bill of complaint and the remaining portions of the answer. At final hearing the chancellor entered a final decree in favor of the plaintiff for the face amount of the tax certificates, with interest and costs. This appeal is from that decree, the defendants below, who are the appellants here, contending that the stricken portions of the answer constituted valid defenses and should have been allowed to stand.

Under the showing made by the stricken portions of the answer it does not appear that the tax here complained of was void. Furthermore, the answer affirmatively shows that all the lands in the county similarly situated and of the same kind and class as the property of the defendants below were similarly assessed and by the same method and plan. A greater proportionate tax burden was not thereby placed upon the lands of defendants than upon other wild and unimproved lands in the county. The property in question was subject to taxation at some valuation and was not entitled to be exempted entirely. These facts, without more, would seem to preclude the landowners from setting up the supposed defense tendered on this point. See West Virginia Hotel Corp. v. Foster Co., 101 Fla. 1147, 132 So. 842; Lee v. Booker & Co., Inc., 108 Fla. 534, 146 So. 546; Lee v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 141 Fla. 545, 194 So. 252.

But aside from this, if the landowners conceived that they were...