New Smyrna Inlet District v. Esch

138 So. 49, 137 So. 1, 103 Fla. 24, 1931 Fla. LEXIS 1237
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedOctober 9, 1931
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 138 So. 49 (New Smyrna Inlet District v. Esch) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
New Smyrna Inlet District v. Esch, 138 So. 49, 137 So. 1, 103 Fla. 24, 1931 Fla. LEXIS 1237 (Fla. 1931).

Opinions

Whitfield, P.J.

Chapter 11791, Laws of Florida, approved November 30, 1925, amends and re-enacts Chapter 10448, approved June 8, 1925, creating a special taxing district known as “Daytona and New Smyrna Inlet District”, embracing the territory included in County Commissioner’s Districts Nos. 4 and 5, Volusia County, Florida. The taxing power conferred by Chapter 11791 upon the district was held to be invalid in Stewart v. Daytona and New Smyrna Inlet District, 94 Fla. 859, 114 So. 545.

In Stewart v. New Smyrna Inlet District et al., 100 Fla. 1126, 130 So. 575, it was held that the referendum provision of Chapter 14503, Acts of 1929, an act to abolish the Daytona and New Smyrna Inlet District and to create the New Smyrna Inlet District embracing County Commissioner’s District No. 4, and requiring the taxes collected under Chapter 11791 to be paid over to the Board of Commissioners of New Smyrna Inlet District under Chapter 14503, violated amended section 21, Article III of the Constitution. As a result of such decision, Chapter 14503 is invalid.

Chapter 14771, Acts of 1931, (Senate Bill No. 800) does not purport to amend Chapter 11791 and 14503, but expressly repeals those acts and creates and incorporates a special taxing district in Volusia- County, Florida, to be known as New Smyrna Inlet District, embracing described territory, and designates three persons as the *27 first board of trustees of said district with stated authority and duties, including the power to levy a tax and to issue bonds of the district wherewith to construct and maintain a channel through the inlet connecting the waters of the Indian River North and Halifax River with the waters .of the Atlantic Ocean.

Chapter 14765 and 14770, (House Bills Nos. 1377 and 1378) Acts of 1931, provide that all taxes heretofore levied or collected and all assessments made in pursuance of Chapters 10448, 11791 and 14503, Laws of Florida, against any and all of the taxable property embraced within the territorial boundaries of County Commissioner’s Districts No. 4 and No. 5 of Yolusia County, Florida, be “in all respects, legalized, ratified, validated and confirmed as fully and completely as if said taxes had been specifically levied or collected, and as if said assessments had been specifically made in pursuance of prior legal constitutional and valid acts of the legislature, notwithstanding any unconstitutionality, illegality, want of power or authority, irregularities, omissions, or any other defects whatsoever, in said Acts, in pursuance of which said taxes were levied or collected, and in pursuance of which said assessments were made.” The Acts further require the Board of Commissioners of New Smyrna Inlet District under Chapter 14503 to deliver to the Trustees of New Smyrna Inlet District under Chapter 14771 all monies, etc., collected as' taxes in the former district to be used under Chapter 14771.

On November 12, 1930, prior to the enactment’ of Chapters 14765, 14770 and 14771 above referred to, certain taxpayers filed an Amended Supplemental Bill of Complaint alleging in effect that the original Bill of complaint was filed March 17, 1928, that, under Chapter 11791, taxes were levied in the district and about *28 $135,000.00 of taxes were collected, and that after expenditures alleged to he unauthorized were made, a large part of the collected tax is now in the hands of named persons pretending to act as commissioners of the purported Daytona and New Smyrna Inlet District under Chapter 11791. It is prayed that an accounting he had of the taxes collected and that appropriate decrees be made for returning to the taxpayers the respective amounts of taxes paid in by them. There are other allegations and prayers which need not be stated here. The court overruled demurrers to the Amended Supplemental Bill of •Complaint and the defendants appealed.

It is in effect contended for the appellants that although the taxes were illegally levied and collected, they were voluntarily paid, and the levy and collection thereof have been ratified and confirmed by Chapters 14765 and 14770, and that as such Chapters require the Board of Commissioners of New Smyrna Inlet District as constituted in pursuance of Chapter 14503, Acts of 1929, and its successors in office to pay over to the Trustees of New Smyrna Inlet District as constituted under Chapter 14771, Acts of 1931, all monies, taxes, funds, securities, and properties and assets which have been heretofore collected under Chapter 11791, and paid over to the Board of Commissioners under Chapter 14503, the taxes collected are lawfully in the custody of the trustees under Chapter 14771, Acts of 1931.

The constitution expressly provides that “no tax shall be ‘levied except in pursuance of law”, section 3, Article IX; and when an ad valorem tax is levied upon property under an invalid enactment, the amounts of such taxes that were involuntarily paid may be recovered by the taxpayer in appropriate procedure that is not in effect an-unauthorized suit against the State. Where the levy of *29 an illegal tax may become a cloud upon title to real estate, payment of tbe tax to avoid the cloud or to avoid the imposition of substantial burdens upon property rights of the owner, is not a voluntary payment. See S. A. L. Ry. v. Allen, 82 Fla. 191, 89 So. 555; A. T. & S. Ry. v. O’Connor, 223 U. S. 280, 32 Sup. Ct. 216, 56 L. Ed. 436.

The tax levy was not made for general governmental purposes, but to provide specific public improvements for the special benefit of the district that is taxed for the project, and if the statute authorizing the improvement be repealed or the project be abandoned, taxes paid in and not properly expended may 'be recovered. The tax is collected along with other governmental taxes under similar penalties and burdens to the taxpayer; and the levy being illegal, the taxpayers may recover amounts paid though no protest was made to the collection of the tax as being illegal, unless the tax levy be legally validated and the proceeds are used for a valid purpose.

Chapters 14765 and 14770 purport to validate the tax levy and to authorize the funds collected to be used by a different district created by Chapter 14771, in providing a public improvement that is similar to and perhaps is to be at the same location as that provided for by Chapter 11791 under which the tax was levied, therefore the effect of such validating statutes must be determined.

The principle that a subsequent statutory ratification of a tax levy is equiválent to previous authorization, C. H. & N. Ry. v. Welles et al., 78 Fla 227, 82 So. 770, 260 U. S. 8, 43 Sup. Ct. 3, 67 L. Ed. 100, is of general but not universal application and has definite limitations.

Where a tax levy is made by administrative officers under defective legislative enactments, or without complying with prescribed statutory requirements, such administrative levy may be ratified by a proper statutory *30

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

Related

NICHOLAS SHECKLER v. MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2022
Collier County v. Freni
635 So. 2d 145 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1994)
Ves Carpenter Contractors, Inc. v. City of Dania
422 So. 2d 342 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1982)
Stroop v. Rutherford County
567 S.W.2d 753 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1978)
Coe v. Broward County
358 So. 2d 214 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1978)
Blessing v. T. Shriver and Co.
228 A.2d 711 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1967)
State v. Boscia
226 A.2d 643 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1967)
Scott v. Scott
30 So. 2d 620 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1947)
North Miami v. Seaway Corporation
9 So. 2d 705 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1942)
The City of Sebring v. Harder Hall, Inc.
9 So. 2d 350 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1942)
State v. Bd. Commissioners Everglades Drainage Dist.
194 So. 786 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1940)
Esch v. Forster
168 So. 229 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1936)
State Ex Rel. Board of Commissioners v. Latham
163 So. 890 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1935)
Forster v. Esch
152 So. 444 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1933)
State Ex Rel. Landis v. Prevatt
148 So. 578 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1933)
Utley v. City of St. Petersburg
144 So. 58 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1932)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
138 So. 49, 137 So. 1, 103 Fla. 24, 1931 Fla. LEXIS 1237, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/new-smyrna-inlet-district-v-esch-fla-1931.