State, Ex Rel. v. Butts Ragan v. Peacock

149 So. 746, 111 Fla. 630
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedJuly 5, 1933
StatusPublished
Cited by31 cases

This text of 149 So. 746 (State, Ex Rel. v. Butts Ragan v. Peacock) 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
State, Ex Rel. v. Butts Ragan v. Peacock, 149 So. 746, 111 Fla. 630 (Fla. 1933).

Opinions

Whitfield, J.

In the three cases here considered together the constitutional validity of a legislative enactment known as the “Futch Bill,” Senate Bill No. 597, Chapter 16252, Acts of 1933, copied in the statement filed herewith, is challenged as it affects the rights of an applicant to purchase a tax sale certificate, of a holder of a certificate of indebtedness issued by a county board of public instruction and of a citizen taxpayer. See 3rd head note, State ex rel. Dofnos Corp. v. Lehman, 100 Fla. 1401; 131 Sou. Rep. 333, for the authority of a tax payer to maintain such a proceeding. The general purpose of the Act 'is to provide further extension privileges and inducements to owners for the redemption of tax sale certificates held by the State for unpaid State, county and district taxes upon real estate for the year 1931 and prior years, after the two-year period of redemption has expired; and as a consideration or compensation for such additional redemption privileges and inducements, to require the assessment of such lands for current and future taxation, they being under the law not now assessed because they have been sold to the State for unpaid taxes and the tax sale certificates are still held by the State. Section 984 (769) Compiled General Laws. *642 The object of this Act is to- utilize the otherwise unredeemed tax sale certificates held by the State for unpaid State, county and district taxes for the year 1931 and prior years, after the two-year period of redemption has expired, for the benefit of the taxing units having rights in unpaid taxes included in the tax sale certificates, and that lands not now being assessed for State, county and district taxation because they have been sold to the State and not redeemed, may be now and hereafter assessed to share the burdens of taxation.

Pursuant to the organic requirements for an equal and uniform system of ad valorem taxation and for due process and equal protection of the laws, statutes of the Statej some of which are referred to in the statement, provide for 'equal and uniform rates, of ad valorem taxation in the various taxing units based upon just valuations of all property that is subject to ad valorem taxation in the taxing units respectively. Such system of taxation-includes the sale of lands for the non-payment of State, county and district taxes and for the issue to the State of tax sale certificates showing the amount due for State, county and district taxes 'on described lands sold to the State at tax sales in the absence of other purposes and provides that the purchaser of land at a tax sale will “be entitled to a deed of conveyance in accordance with the law unless the same shall be redeemed by payment' of such amount and within such periods of time as are provided by law.”- Section 8, Chapter 14572, Acts of 1929, amending Section 981 (766) C. G. L. Tax sale certificates held by the State may be sold at any time for the. unpaid taxes, interest and charges or as may be provided by law, upon which certificates tax deeds may issue or foreclosure proceedings may be had as authorized by law, after the expiration of the *643 two-year period of redemption if the lands are not redeemed. Section 12, Chap. 14572, Acts of 1929, amending Sec. 1003 (779) C. G. L. Where lands are sold to' the State for non-payment of taxes and the land is not redeemed or the certificates sold by the State, the title to the land, at the expiration of the time for redemption vests in the State without the issuing of any deed and the certificates shall be evidence of the title of the State. Section 1027 (796) C. G. L. The owners of the land so sold have by statute additional privileges after the expiration of the statutory period of two years, to .redeem the land by appropriate payments at any time before tax deeds are issued or before sale under final foreclosure decrees. Sections 12 and 21, Chapter 14572, Acts of 1929.

When the two-year period of redemption expires, the tax sale certificates then held by the State, may by the Legislature be regarded as being of depreciated value and not readily productive of revenue by sale or redemption. It is within the province of the Legislature to provide for such use and disposition of the tax sale certificates held by the State after the two-year period of redemption has expired, as will in its judgment' best conserve the interests of the taxing units having rights in the unpaid taxes as shown by the assessments of lands upon which the sales are made and the tax sale certificates are issued.

While the legislative power cannot legally be utilized to violate organic rights that may exist in the disposition of tax salé certificates held by the State, nor as a means of simply favoring delinquent tax payers to the prejudice of others who are not delinquent, yet, the Legislature has power to enact laws making reasonable and appropriate concessions to encourage the redemption of forfeited land from tax sales, thereby acquiring some value for certificates *644 representing uncollectable or long delinquent taxes, and restoring the lands to the tax roll for current and future assessments, and to regulate the use and disposition of taxable resources and assets for the benefit of interested taxing units. And such legislative power should be considered and given appropriate effect in adjudicating the rights of taxing units and of those who have an interest as owner-taxpayer or as public creditor or otherwise in the making of tax levies and in the disposition of depreciated tax sale certificates which may be nonproductive assets derived through tax assessments for State, county and district ad valorem taxation.

The organic requirements that the Legislature shall provide for a uniform and equal rate of ad valorem taxation upon just valuations of all taxable property and that all property shall be taxed upon the principles established for State taxation, do not forbid the enactment and enforcement of statutes designed to facilitate the adjustment and settlement of delinquent taxes through reasonable additional extensions, reductions and privileges, to encourage or to facilitate the redemption of lands covered by tax sale certificates held by the State after the initial redemption period of two years has expired, such privileges of redemption being extended to owners of the property upon condition that current and future taxes on the same land shall be assessed and duly paid; or to make reasonable disposition for some appropriate consideration of tax sale certificates held by the State after the initial period of redemption has expired, when such certificates may be regarded by the Legislature as being depreciated in their revenue value and may not be redeemed or sold except at a discount, where such statutes are appropriate to conserve the interests of the taxing units that have rights in the unpaid taxes represented by the tax *645 sale certificates, and the statutory provisions accord with the principles established by law for State taxation, and are in furtherance of a proper State policy. Such statutes may not violate the organic requirements of uniform and equal ad valorem taxation or' the organic principles ' expressed in the requirements of due process and of equal protection of the laws. See Cooley on Taxation (4th Ed.) Sections 259, 264; Ide v. Finneran, 29 Kan. 569; Lincoln Mortgage & Trust Co. v. Davis, 76 Kan. 639, 92 Pac. Rep.

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

Related

State v. Franklin
836 So. 2d 1112 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2003)
Sunbeam Corporation v. Masters of Miami, Inc.
225 F.2d 191 (Fifth Circuit, 1955)
Hill v. Di Beneditto
43 So. 2d 819 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1950)
Prince Hall Masonic Building Ass'n v. City of Jacksonville
6 So. 2d 250 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1941)
Burns v. Lauderdale Loan & Discount Co.
4 So. 2d 467 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1941)
City of Raleigh v. Jordan
218 N.C. 55 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1940)
State Ex Rel. Hurner v. Culbreath
192 So. 814 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1939)
Culmer v. Office Realty Co.
189 So. 52 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1939)
Sharrow v. City of Dania
180 So. 18 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1938)
Dickinson v. State Ex Rel. State
178 So. 291 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1938)
Shannon, Auditor v. Heringer
111 S.W.2d 603 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1937)
Messer v. Lang Messer v. Lee
176 So. 548 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1937)
Anglo California National Bank of San Francisco v. Leland
70 P.2d 937 (California Supreme Court, 1937)
Wall v. McNee
87 F.2d 768 (Fifth Circuit, 1937)
Steinacher v. Swanson
268 N.W. 317 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1936)
City of Marianna v. Davis
169 So. 50 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1936)
McNee v. Wall
13 F. Supp. 326 (S.D. Florida, 1935)
First State Savings Bank v. Little River Drainage District
165 So. 48 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1935)
State Ex Rel. Scofield Publishing Co. v. Lee
164 So. 359 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1935)
Sheppard v. Hidalgo County
83 S.W.2d 649 (Texas Supreme Court, 1935)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
149 So. 746, 111 Fla. 630, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-v-butts-ragan-v-peacock-fla-1933.