Ranger Realty Co. v. Hefty

152 So. 439, 112 Fla. 654, 1933 Fla. LEXIS 2332
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedNovember 13, 1933
StatusPublished
Cited by29 cases

This text of 152 So. 439 (Ranger Realty Co. v. Hefty) 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
Ranger Realty Co. v. Hefty, 152 So. 439, 112 Fla. 654, 1933 Fla. LEXIS 2332 (Fla. 1933).

Opinion

Whitfield, J.

The owner in possession of land brought suit to enjoin the issuance of a tax deed upon a tax sale *656 certificate purchased at a tax sale in 1928 for State and county taxes' for 1927 assessed against the land situated in the City of Miami, Dade County, Florida. The certificate is alleged to be void upon stated grounds affecting the proceedings in making the tax assessment and sale and in issuing the tax sale certificate. By amendment, the State Comptroller was made a party defendant under the statute, whereupon it is also sought to have cancelled a tax sale certificate held by the State for State and county taxes for the year 1928 upon the same land. There are also allegations as to an invalid city tax sale certificate covering the land. The object of the suit is the cancellation of the tax s'ale certificates and of the assessments as made, as being clouds upon title. Other allegations of the bill of complaint need not be stated here.

The court granted a temporary restraining order covering the two State tax-sale certificates. A motion to dissolve the restraining order, a motion to dismiss the bill of complaint and a motion to strike portions of the bill of complaint made by the defendant Ranger Realty Company, were severally denied and that defendant appealed. It is not necessary to discuss the grounds of misjoinder of parties and of causes of action stated in the motion to dismiss.

It is in effect contended for the appellant that the chancellor was not authorized to enter the temporary restraining order without requiring the owner to pay such taxes as could have been lawfully assessed against the property; that under the statutes, irregularities in the assignment proceedings do not make tax assessments or tax sale certificates invalid where the property was' subject to taxation and the taxes have not been paid; that the irregularities in the assessments and tax sale certificates complained of are cured by statute and that the complainant does not offer to do *657 equity by paying the taxes that could legally have been assessed against the property.

For the appellee it is in substance contended that the tax sale certificate held by the defendant appellant is void because the provisions of the statute were not complied with in making the assessments and sale for non-payment of the taxes and in issuing the tax sale certificate. The Constitution provides:

“No tax shall be levied except in pursuance of law.” Sec. 3, Art. IX.

“No person or corporation shall be relieved by any court from the payment of any tax that may be illegal or illegally or irregularly assessed, until he or it shall have paid such portion of his or its taxes as may be legal, and legally and regularly assessed.” Sec. 8, Art. IX.

“The circuit courts shall have exclusive original jurisdiction * * * in all cases involving the legality of any tax, assessment or toll * * *.” Sec. 1, Art. V.

The statutes provide:

“All real and personal property shall be subject to taxation on the first day of January of each year, dnd this Chapter shall create a lien upon such property for the purposes .thereof superior to all others, which lien in addition to the provisions of this Chapter for the collection of taxes on personal property may be enforced by suit in equity.” Sec. 896 (696), C. G. L., 1927.

“All taxes imposed pursuant to the Constitution and laws of this State shall be a first lien superior to all other liens on any property against which such taxes have been assessed which shall continue in force and effect until discharged by payment, and no act of omission or commission on the part of any tax assessor, or any assistant tax assessor, or any tax collector, or any Board of County Commissioners, *658 or any clerk of the circuit court or any other officer of this State, or any newspaper in which any advertisement o.f sale may be published, shall operate to defeat the payment of said taxes; but any such acts of omission or commission may be corrected at any time by the officer or party responsible for the same in like manner as is' now or may hereafter be provided by law for performing such acts in the first place, and when so corrected they shall be construed as valid ab initio and shall in no way affect any process' provided by law for the enforcement of the collection of any such tax. All owners of property shall be held to know that taxes are due and payable thereon annually, and are hereby charged with the duty of ascertaining the amount of such tax and paying the same before the first day of April of each year; all provisions of law now existing or which may be hereafter enacted relating to the assessment and collection of revenue (unless otherwise specifically so declared) shall be deemed and held to be directory only, designed for the orderly arrangement of records' and procedure of officers in enforcing the revenue laws of the State and not primarily for the protection or benefit of the taxpayer ; and no assessment, and no sale or conveyance of real or personal property for non-payment of taxes shall be held invalid except upon proof that the property was not subject to taxation, or that the taxes had been paid previous to sale, or that the property had been redeemed prior to the execution and delivery of deed based upon certificate issued for non-payment of taxes.” Sec. 1, Ch. 14572, Acts of 1929.

“All tax sale certificates and deeds now held and owned by the State of Florida, or any person, firm or corporation which are invalid on account of any matter or thing not affecting the authority of the State or any county thereof to levy and collect the taxes evidenced by such certificates are *659 hereby validated and made legal to the extent of any lien evidenced thereby, in so .far as is competent for the Legislature of the State of Florida so to do; provided, however, that this section shall not apply to certificates and/or deeds involved in litigation now pending.” Sec. 16, Ch. 14572, Acts 1929.

“No decree shall be made by any court in a suit brought by or on behalf of any land owner to enjoin any tax sale or to set aside or cancel any tax certificate in the State of Florida until such owner shall have paid to the tax collector of the county where the property is assessable the full amount of the taxes which could have been lawfully assessed against the property involved for the period covered by the assessment complained of, whether such real estate shall have been returned for assessment by the owner thereof or not. In all such cases the court shall ascertain and determine and by decree fix the amount of such tax to be paid by the-owner.” Sec. 1008, C. G. L., 1927.

“The courts of chancery in this' State shall have jurisdiction in all cases involving the legality of any tax, assessment or toll, and shall inquire into and determine the legality, equality and validity of the same under the Constitution and laws of the State of Florida, and shall render decrees setting aside such tax, assessment or toll, or any part of the same, that shall appear to be contrary to law; Provided, that the complainant shall in.

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

Related

Blake v. RMS Holding Corp.
341 So. 2d 795 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1977)
Collins Investment Co. v. Metropolitan Dade County
164 So. 2d 806 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1964)
Dade County Land Development Corp. v. Dade County
157 So. 2d 142 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1963)
Certain Lots Upon Which Taxes Are Delinquent v. Town of Monticello
31 So. 2d 905 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1947)
Mitchell v. Moore
13 So. 2d 314 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1943)
Moore v. Wesley E. Garrison, Inc.
5 So. 2d 259 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1941)
Adams v. Fielding
4 So. 2d 678 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1941)
City of Fort Myers v. Heitman
4 So. 2d 871 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1941)
Gautier v. Town of Crescent City
189 So. 842 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1939)
The Arundel Corp. v. Sproul
186 So. 679 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1939)
City of Coral Gables v. Fluvia Corp.
185 So. 621 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1938)
Rio Vista Hotel & Improvement Co. v. Belle Mead Development Corp.
182 So. 417 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1937)
McCord v. Lee
172 So. 853 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1937)
Southern Pine Co. of Georgia v. Murphy Investment Co.
171 So. 325 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1936)
Boley, Et Ux. v. Hilbun
169 So. 409 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1936)
Coombes v. City of Coral Gables
168 So. 524 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1936)
Brickell v. Palbicke
167 So. 44 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1936)
Draughon v. Heitman
168 So. 838 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1936)
City of Winter Haven v. Lake Elbert Citrus Fruit Co.
165 So. 360 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1936)
Saussy v. Northern Investment Corp.
165 So. 268 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1935)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
152 So. 439, 112 Fla. 654, 1933 Fla. LEXIS 2332, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ranger-realty-co-v-hefty-fla-1933.