Service Metro Corp. v. Bell

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Service Metro Corp. v. Bell

786 So. 2d 1216, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 7578, 2001 WL 584372

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 1, 2001

DocketNos. 1D00-2583, 1D00-2802, 1D00-2806, 1D00-2811 and 1D00-2814

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 786 So. 2d 1216 (Service Metro Corp. v. Bell) 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

Service Metro Corp. v. Bell, 786 So. 2d 1216, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 7578, 2001 WL 584372 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

POLSTON, J.

Appellant Service Metro Corporation seeks an exemption from ad valorem property tax assessments pursuant to section 196.199, Florida Statutes, for various tax years. To qualify for the exemption, the property must be owned and used by a governmental entity for governmental or [1217]*1217public purposes. Because the property is leased and occupied by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (“HRS”), now known as the Department of Children and Families, it is undisputed that the property is being used for a governmental purpose. The issue is who owns the property. Service Metro argues that Escambia County and HRS own the property.

After a two-day bench trial, the circuit court ruled, with extensive analysis, that the property is not exempt because Service Metro is the true owner of the property. We agree that Service Metro has sufficient rights and duties regarding the property to make it the equitable owner. See Leon County Educational Facilities Authority v. Hartsfield, 698 So.2d 526 (Fla.1997); First Union National Bank of Florida v. Ford, 636 So.2d 523 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993). Accordingly, we affirm.

However, we do not reach the circuit court’s ruling that Escambia County’s acceptance of bare legal title was an unconstitutional accommodation by the County to aid a private corporation in violation of Article VII, § 10, of the Florida Constitution. Singletary v. State, 322 So.2d 551, 552 (Fla.1975)(courts should avoid reaching a constitutional issue in a case when the decision can be made on other grounds).

AFFIRMED.

ALLEN and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.

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

POLSTON, J.

Appellant Service Metro Corporation seeks an exemption from ad valorem property tax assessments pursuant to section 196.199, Florida Statutes, for various tax years. To qualify for the exemption, the property must be owned and used by a governmental entity for governmental or [1217]*1217public purposes. Because the property is leased and occupied by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (“HRS”), now known as the Department of Children and Families, it is undisputed that the property is being used for a governmental purpose. The issue is who owns the property. Service Metro argues that Escambia County and HRS own the property.

After a two-day bench trial, the circuit court ruled, with extensive analysis, that the property is not exempt because Service Metro is the true owner of the property. We agree that Service Metro has sufficient rights and duties regarding the property to make it the equitable owner. See Leon County Educational Facilities Authority v. Hartsfield, 698 So.2d 526 (Fla.1997); First Union National Bank of Florida v. Ford, 636 So.2d 523 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993). Accordingly, we affirm.

However, we do not reach the circuit court’s ruling that Escambia County’s acceptance of bare legal title was an unconstitutional accommodation by the County to aid a private corporation in violation of Article VII, § 10, of the Florida Constitution. Singletary v. State, 322 So.2d 551, 552 (Fla.1975)(courts should avoid reaching a constitutional issue in a case when the decision can be made on other grounds).

AFFIRMED.

ALLEN and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

786 So. 2d 1216, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 7578, 2001 WL 584372, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/service-metro-corp-v-bell-fladistctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack