Bruner v. Hartsfield

23 So. 3d 192, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 17266, 2009 WL 3818216

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: November 17, 2009
• Docket: 1D08-5524
• Status: Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellants seek reversal of the final order which dismissed with prejudice their second amended complaint challenging the constitutionality of certain portions of section 4, Article VII of the Florida Constitution. More particularly, appellants have challenged the constitutionality of (i) the “Save Our Homes Amendment” (SOHA) which placed a cap on the amount the assessed value of homestead property could be increased annually, and (ii) Amendment 1, adopted by popular referendum in 2008, which, among other things, made a portion of a homesteader’s existing exemption portable to newly-purchased homestead property. Art. VII, § 4(c)(1) and (8), Fla. Const. Appellants argue that these amendments violate several federal constitutional provisions.

This court has already considered and rejected virtually identical constitutional challenges to SOHA in Reinish v. Clark, 765 So.2d 197 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000), and Lanning v. Pilcher, 16 So.3d 294 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009). The holdings in Reinish and Lanning that section 4, Article VII is not unconstitutional for the reasons claimed are not changed by the passage of Amendment 1. Accordingly, we affirm the final order of dismissal.

As for the issue raised on cross-appeal, that the trial court erred in concluding it had subject matter jurisdiction despite appellants/cross-appellees’ failure to comply with section 194.171(1), Florida Statutes, this issue is governed by Lanning, 16 So.3d at 296-97. Pursuant to that decision, we affirm the issue raised on cross-appeal.

The appeal and cross-appeal are AFFIRMED.

VAN NORTWICK, and PADOVANO, JJ., BROWNING, JR., EDWIN B., Senior Judge, Concur.