Robbins v. Section 3 Property Corp.Robbins v. Section 3 Property Corp.
Bailey Hunt Jones & Busto and William A. Fragetta, Miami, for respondent.
Before JORGENSON, LEVY and GODERICH, JJ.
JORGENSON, Judge.
Joel Robbins, Dade County‘s Property Appraiser, filed an action to contest the granting of an agricultural exemption to property owned by Section 3 Property Corporation. The owner filed a demand for a jury trial, and the Property Appraiser filed a motion to strike the demand. The trial court denied the motion to strike. The Property Appraiser now seeks review. For the reasons which follow, we grant certiorari, quash the order, and remand for further proceedings.
The right to a jury trial in a tax assessment challenge against an agricultural classification appears to be a question of first impression. However, it is well established that where the right or remedy is equitable in nature there is no right to a jury trial. Hawkins v. Rellim Inv. Co., 92 Fla. 784, 110 So. 350 (Fla. 1926); Hathorne v. Panama Park Co., 44 Fla. 194, 32 So. 812 (Fla. 1902); Hughes v. Hannah, 39 Fla. 365, 22 So. 613 (Fla. 1897); Wiggins v. Williams, 36 Fla. 637, 18 So. 859 (Fla. 1896). Thus, actions in equity do not fall within the protection of
We recognize that the issue of whether a tract of land is to be classified as agricultural for tax assessment purposes involves questions of fact. Conrad v. Sapp, 252 So. 2d 225, 227 (Fla. 1971). This, however, does not mean that such issues may be submitted to a jury. Issues of fact traditionally within the scope of courts of equity are decided by the courts. Lincoln Tower Corp. v. Dunhall‘s-Florida, Inc., 61 So. 2d 474 (Fla. 1952); See Greenwood v. Oates, 251 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 1971) (court was trier of facts in case involving an agricultural classification).
The remedy sought in this tax challenge case is in the nature of an injunction and a declaratory judgment seeking the reinstatement of the Property Appraiser‘s original assessment. The remedy is equitable in nature; therefore, the right to a jury trial does not apply. Hawkins, 92 Fla. at 788, 110 So. at 351; Hathorne, 44 Fla. at 196, 32 So. at 813; Hughes, 39 Fla. at 371, 22 So. at 615; Wiggins, 36 Fla. at 656, 18 So. at 865. Because this case presents a question of great public importance, we certify the following question to the supreme court:
Is there a right to a jury trial under
Article I, Section 22 of the Florida Constitution (1968) , in a tax action to challenge a Property Appraiser‘s grant of an agricultural exemption?
We grant the petition for a writ of certiorari, quash the order under review, and remand for further proceedings.