Turner v. HILLSBOROUGH AVIATION AUTH., 98-03123.

• Decision Date: 03 September 1999
• Docket Number: No. 98-03123.,98-03123.
• Citation: 739 So.2d 175
• Parties: Rob TURNER, as Hillsborough County Property Appraiser, Appellant, v. HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY AVIATION AUTHORITY, a public body corporate under the laws of the State of Florida, the Tampa Sports Authority, a body corporate in politic of the State of Florida, and the New York Yankees Partnership, an Ohio limited partnership, Appellees.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

739 So.2d 175

Rob TURNER, as Hillsborough County Property Appraiser, Appellant, v. HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY AVIATION AUTHORITY, a public body corporate under the laws of the State of Florida, the Tampa Sports Authority, a body corporate in politic of the State of Florida, and the New York Yankees Partnership, an Ohio limited partnership, Appellees.

No. 98-03123.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

September 3, 1999.

William D. Shepherd, General Counsel, Hillsborough County Property Appraiser's Office, Tampa, for Appellant.

Donald W. Stanley, Jr. and James S. Eggert of Allen, Dell, Frank & Trinkle, Tampa, for Hillsborough County Aviation Authority, Appellee.

Steven L. Brannock, Rebecca H. Steele, and Robert E.V. Kelley, Jr. of Holland & Knight, LLP, Tampa, for New York Yankees Partnership, Appellee.

John I. Van Voris of Shackleford, Farrior, Stallings & Evans, P.A., Tampa, for Tampa Sports Authority, Appellee.

FULMER, Judge.

This appeal concerns a dispute over the 1997 ad valorem tax status of property owned by the Hillsborough County Aviation Authority, leased to the Tampa Sports Authority and licensed to the New York Yankees for use as a baseball facility. At issue is the application of section 196.012(6), Florida Statutes (1997), which authorizes a governmental tax exemption to certain sports facilities with permanent seating. We hold that Rob Turner, in his official capacity as the Hillsborough County Property Appraiser, did not have standing to challenge the constitutionality of the exemption, and therefore, affirm the trial court's dismissal of Turner's complaint.

This controversy began when Turner assessed the subject property at approximately five million dollars without granting any portion of it a governmental tax exemption. The Aviation Authority filed a petition with the Value Adjustment Board (VAB), pursuant to section 194.011(3), Florida Statutes (1997), seeking to overturn Turner's assessment. The VAB ruled in favor of the Aviation Authority and reduced the assessment to approximately one million dollars based on its decision that, pursuant to section 196.012(6), the portion of the property on which the baseball diamonds and public seating were located qualified for tax exemption as a "sports facility with permanent seating." The VAB adjusted the assessment accordingly, and the tax rolls were recertified reflecting the adjusted assessment on March 11, 1998.

Turner filed suit in circuit court against the Aviation Authority and Melvin B. Smith, the Hillsborough County Tax Collector, pursuant to section 194.036(1)(a), (b), Florida Statutes (1997), which sets forth the procedure to appeal a VAB decision. Turner did not include the Florida Department of Revenue (DOR) as a party-defendant. The complaint alleged that the decision of the VAB violated Article VII, Section 3(a) of the Florida Constitution. The relief sought was reinstatement of Turner's denial of exemption status on the property.

The Aviation Authority filed a counter-claim to preserve its right to challenge Turner's original assessment in the event the court ruled adversely to the Authority on the exemption. The Aviation Authority named DOR as a defendant, but only served Turner and the Hillsborough County Tax Collector. The Yankees and the Sports Authority successfully intervened as defendants, as they ultimately would be responsible for paying the taxes under their contracts with the Aviation Authority.

On May 29, 1998, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on several grounds, two of which were that Turner failed to join DOR as an indispensable party and that Turner did not have standing to challenge the constitutionality of the statute. On July 17, 1998, the trial court ruled that DOR was an indispensable party pursuant to section 194.181(5), Florida Statutes (1997), which provides in relevant part:

In any suit in which the assessment of any tax ... is contested on the ground that it is contrary to the State Constitution, the official of the state government responsible for overall supervision of the assessment and collection of such tax [DOR] shall be made a party defendant of such suit.

The trial court further ruled that it was futile to grant Turner leave to amend his complaint to add DOR as a party because the statute of limitations had run and the amendment would not "relate back" to the original date of filing. Concluding that the failure to join DOR in the original complaint warranted dismissal with prejudice, the trial court did not consider argument on the standing issue. Turner moved for reconsideration, but the motion was denied. While the motion for reconsideration was pending, the Aviation Authority voluntarily dismissed its counterclaim.

On appeal, Turner first argues that his suit is not a challenge to the constitutionality of the "assessment of any tax," and therefore, the joinder of DOR is not required. In response, the Appellees contend that Turner's suit is, in fact, a challenge to the constitutionality of the sports facility exemption in section 196.012(6) and that Turner, as an elected official who is sworn to uphold and enforce the laws, lacks standing to challenge the constitutionality of the tax-exemption statute. Therefore, the Appellees urge this court to affirm the trial court's dismissal of Turner's complaint on the alternative ground of standing.

Because this appeal presents a pure question of law, we review the trial court's ruling de novo. See Operation Rescue v. Women's Health Ctr., Inc., 626 So.2d 664, 670 (Fla.1993),

aff'd in part, rev'd in part on other grounds, 512 U.S. 753, 114 S.Ct. 2516, 129 L.Ed.2d 593 (1994). Furthermore, the trial court's reasoning is not binding upon this court, and we may affirm the trial court's ruling on an alternative theory. See City of Tampa v. Carolina Freight Carriers Corp., 529 So.2d 324, 326 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). Accordingly, we affirm on the ground that Turner lacked standing to challenge the statutory exemption. Because we affirm the trial court's dismissal on this alternative theory, we need not consider the trial court's reasoning concerning Turner's failure to join DOR as a party-defendant.

We begin our discussion of Turner's standing by reiterating the well-established, common law rule that "[s]tate officers and agencies must presume legislation affecting their duties to be valid, and do not have standing to initiate litigation for the purpose of determining otherwise." Department of Educ. v. Lewis, 416 So.2d 455, 458 (Fla.1982). Turner concedes the general rule but argues first that his complaint does not challenge the constitutionality of any statute, rather, it challenges only the decision of the VAB as being a violation of Article VII, Section 3(a) of the Florida Constitution. As explained below, we fail to see the distinction.

Next, Turner argues that in any event, he is not prohibited from challenging the constitutionality of the statutory exemption in this case because three exceptions to the general rule against standing apply here. He first asserts the public funds exception that allows a constitutional challenge where there is a necessity to protect public funds. See Barr v. Watts, 70 So.2d 347, 350 (Fla.1953)

. Turner contends that if the property is granted an exemption, the loss of tax dollars amounts to a loss of public funds. Without deciding whether this exception is broad enough to apply in the context of tax assessments, as explained more fully below, we conclude that its application is precluded by the express language of section 194.036(1)(a).

Turner next cites to City of Pensacola v. King, 47 So.2d 317 (Fla.1950), to assert the second exception—that if a statute in question imposes duties on an officer that he fears will cause him to violate his oath of office, he may challenge the constitutionality of the act. Shortly after King was decided, the supreme court rejected this same argument, distinguished the dictum in King and re-affirmed the rule of State ex rel. Atlantic Coast Line Railway Co. v. State Board of Equalizers, 84 Fla. 592, 94 So. 681 (1922), that the "right to declare an act unconstitutional ... cannot be exercised by the officers of the executive department under the guise of the observance of their oath of office to support the Constitution." Barr, 70 So.2d at 350-351. Thus, this exception is no longer viable, if indeed it ever was.

The last exception Turner asserts is that the constitutionality of a statute can be raised defensively by a public official. In his brief, Turner argues that if this court reinstates his complaint and if the Aviation Authority asserts the sports facilities provision of section 196.012(6), or any other questionable statute, he may defensively raise the constitutionality of the statute. Suffice it to say, we do not view Turner to be in a defensive position as the plaintiff in his lawsuit. We acknowledge that our conclusion on this issue appears to be in conflict with Fuchs v. Robbins, Nos. 98-275, 98-274, 738 So.2d 338 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)(en banc), appeal filed, No. 96,182 (Fla. Aug. 4, 1999), wherein the Third District characterized a property appraiser's complaint filed pursuant to section 194.036 as a defensive action. In a concurring opinion, Judge Sorondo explains that the litigation should be viewed as beginning not when the property appraiser filed suit in circuit court, but when the taxpayer challenged the property appraiser's...