9 So. 2d 380 | Fla. | 1942
This case is before the Court on certificate under Rule 38 of this Court. The question certified is:
"Can a Plaintiff maintain a suit to enjoin a real estate tax assessment as so flagrantly and obviously excessive, per se as to amount to a legal fraud where the suit was instituted more than thirty days after the assessment became final, in view of Section 1, Chapter 20722, Laws of Florida, Acts of 1941, providing '. . . and no assessment shall be held invalid unless suit be instituted within thirty days from the time the assessment shall become final, . . .'?"
Certified to us with this question is copy of bill of complaint with motion to dismiss same. The purpose of the bill is to contest the legality of a tax on the ground that same is so grossly excessive as to constitute a fraudulent assessment.
Plaintiff contends that part of Section 1 of Chapter 20722, General Laws of 1941, ". . . and no assessment shall be held invalid unless suit be instituted within thirty days from the time the assessment shall become final, . . ." is void because: First, the title of the Act does not meet the requirements of Section
The title of the Act is sufficient to meet the requirements of Section 16, Article III.
Section 5 of the Act contemplates that the assessment shall be final when the original roll is delivered to the Collector and copies are delivered to the Clerk and Comptroller.
Property owners are obliged to know that their property is liable for taxes. Property owners are afforded *286 a method by law to appear before administrative officers and obtain a fair and just assessment of their property.
It is indispensable to government that taxes be assessed and collected. The legislature is charged with the duty of providing a uniform and equal rate of taxation. Section
The legislature perhaps realized that unless the assessment was made final within a relatively short period of time the collection would be impaired thereby resulting in further inequalities in the burdens of taxpayers to sustain the cost of government.
The lower court is therefore advised that the Act in question is valid and the question is answered in the negative.
So ordered.
BROWN, C. J., WHITFIELD, TERRELL, BUFORD, CHAPMAN and THOMAS, JJ., concur. *287