HomeMy WebLinkAbout0858 ~ - _
:f
1~ ~ ~ ~ -
s -
- - K
~ i f
• _ i -
' _ - -,tip - _ - ~ -
t'•
_
_ - \
~ ~
- In September,-1972_, appellee filed a subdivision plat for
a_portion of its land. Relying upon Section 193.461(4)(x)4., Florida
Statutes, appellant James Ft. Bass. as St. Lucie County property
appraiser, denied appellee an agricultural tax classification on
this platted land for the tax yeas 1973. in June, 1973, appellee
filed subdivision plats on its resainiag lands. For the yeas 1974,
1975, and 1976,- the property appraiser denied as agricultural tax
classification for appellee's parcels again relying on Section
193.461(4)(x)4. For each of the tsx years is question, appellee
sought review of the denial~ot agricultural classification. In 1973,
the St. Lucie County Board of Tax Adjustment overturned the property
appraiser's denial, but the denial was reinstated by the Department
of Revenue. In 1974, 1975, and"1976, the Board of Tax Adjustment
upheld the denial of an agricultural tax classification.
i
Beginning in 1974, appellee filed four suits challenging the -
i annual denial of an agricultural tax classification and attacking the
1
constitutionality of Section 193.461(4)(x), as amended. The statute
was challenged, inter alia, on the grounds that: (1) it violated
Article VII, Section 4(a), Florida Constitution; (2) it violated the
equal protection and due process clauses of both the Florida and
Pederal Constitution: and (3). it conflicted With Section 195.062,
Fiori.da Statutes (1975). Appellee's cases-were consclidated.aad
summasy judgment was entered in its favor. In its sus~mary judgment,
the trial court found that Section 193.461(4)(x)4., Florida Statutes
(1975), is unconstitutional because it violates due process by
creating as irrebuttable presumption that land for which the o~+~asr
has recorded a subdivision plat is noaagricultnral. In reaching its
decision, the court expressly declined to reach the equal protection
question and the challenge based on Article VII, Section 4(a), Plorida
Constitution. Further, the court did not address the statutory
conflict claim asserted by appellee. Pi.-:al judgment was entered on
the suamary judgment in favor of appellee.
Ia each of the four suits filed by appellee-the then current
version of S 193.461(4)(x14. was assailed. However, since. the
subsection in issue has remained unchanged during each of the
relevant tax years,-for the sake of clarity and convenience we
shall refer to the most recent applicable provision, i.e.,
5193.461(4)(x)4., Pla. Stet. (1975). ~ .
~~~3~7 e~
_2_