City of North Miami v. Williams

District Court of Appeal of Florida

City of North Miami v. Williams

555 So. 2d 399, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2704, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 6483, 1989 WL 139510

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 21, 1989

DocketNo. 89-959

StatusPublished

This text of 555 So. 2d 399 (City of North Miami v. Williams) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

City of North Miami v. Williams, 555 So. 2d 399, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2704, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 6483, 1989 WL 139510 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the City of North Miami from a final judgment which declares Section 13-22, Computer Class No. 790.00 of the North Miami City Code to be invalid; this section of the Code imposes a $1,875.00 annual occupation license fee for fortune tellers — although the fee assessed for most other occupations in the city is less than 10% of that amount. The final judgment further orders that the plaintiff Rita Williams, a licensed fortune teller in the City of North Miami for the years 1980-87, be reimbursed $7,490 plus interest and costs by the City of North Miami for the license fees which the plaintiff paid to the City for the prior four years; the four-year limitation was imposed based on the applicable four-year statute of limitations. § 95.11(3), Fla.Stat. (1987).

We affirm the final judgment under review — save for that portion which reads “let execution issue,” which is hereby stricken, City of Haines City v. Allen, 549 So.2d 678 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)—upon a holding that: (1) the occupational license fee is so great as to be beyond the necessities of a reasonable revenue-raising device and is therefore unauthorized under Sections 205.-[400]*400042, 205.043, Florida Statutes (1987). Consolidated City of Jacksonville v. Dusenberry, 362 So.2d 132 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978) ($1,000 occupational license fee for fortune tellers, clairvoyants, and astrologers held invalid); see City of Miami v. I.C. Sales, Inc., 276 So.2d 214, 218 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 281 So.2d 213 (Fla.1973); and (2) the occupational license fee cannot be sustained as a valid occupational regulatory fee under Section 166.221, Florida Statutes (1987), because the City of North Miami has made no provision, by ordinance or otherwise, for the regulation of fortune tellers, and, in fact, has assessed the instant fee as an occupational license fee and nothing else. We reject the contention that the subject fee is somehow a hybrid license-regulatory fee; there is nothing in the record to support such a novel theory.

We find no merit in the balance of the points raised by the City of North Miami, and, save for the deletion of “let execution issue,” the final judgment under review is affirmed.

Affirmed as modified.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the City of North Miami from a final judgment which declares Section 13-22, Computer Class No. 790.00 of the North Miami City Code to be invalid; this section of the Code imposes a $1,875.00 annual occupation license fee for fortune tellers — although the fee assessed for most other occupations in the city is less than 10% of that amount. The final judgment further orders that the plaintiff Rita Williams, a licensed fortune teller in the City of North Miami for the years 1980-87, be reimbursed $7,490 plus interest and costs by the City of North Miami for the license fees which the plaintiff paid to the City for the prior four years; the four-year limitation was imposed based on the applicable four-year statute of limitations. § 95.11(3), Fla.Stat. (1987).

We affirm the final judgment under review — save for that portion which reads “let execution issue,” which is hereby stricken, City of Haines City v. Allen, 549 So.2d 678 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)—upon a holding that: (1) the occupational license fee is so great as to be beyond the necessities of a reasonable revenue-raising device and is therefore unauthorized under Sections 205.-[400]*400042, 205.043, Florida Statutes (1987). Consolidated City of Jacksonville v. Dusenberry, 362 So.2d 132 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978) ($1,000 occupational license fee for fortune tellers, clairvoyants, and astrologers held invalid); see City of Miami v. I.C. Sales, Inc., 276 So.2d 214, 218 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 281 So.2d 213 (Fla.1973); and (2) the occupational license fee cannot be sustained as a valid occupational regulatory fee under Section 166.221, Florida Statutes (1987), because the City of North Miami has made no provision, by ordinance or otherwise, for the regulation of fortune tellers, and, in fact, has assessed the instant fee as an occupational license fee and nothing else. We reject the contention that the subject fee is somehow a hybrid license-regulatory fee; there is nothing in the record to support such a novel theory.

We find no merit in the balance of the points raised by the City of North Miami, and, save for the deletion of “let execution issue,” the final judgment under review is affirmed.

Affirmed as modified.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

555 So. 2d 399, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2704, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 6483, 1989 WL 139510, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-north-miami-v-williams-fladistctapp-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack