Title: Markham v. Blount

State: florida

Issuer: Florida Supreme Court

Document:

175 So. 2d 526 (1965)
Robert MARKHAM, as Tax Assessor of Broward County, Florida, Appellant,
v.
Bruce BLOUNT, individually and as a Representative of a Class of Taxpayers in Broward County, et al., Appellees.
No. 33267.

Supreme Court of Florida.
May 21, 1965.
*527 R. Regis Reasbeck, W. Hollywood, for appellant.
A.J. Musselman, Jr., Pompano Beach, for appellee Bruce R. Blount.
Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Fred M. Burns and William R. Phillips, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellee Ray E. Green.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant herein filed suit in the Circuit Court for a declaratory decree construing allegedly conflicting provisions of laws governing the assessment of agricultural lands for taxation. Bruce Blount, a farmer and owner of agricultural lands in Broward County, individually and as representative of a class of residents and taxpayers in the county, and Ray Green, as Comptroller of the State of Florida, were named defendants.
The complaint alleged that conflict arises by virtue of the directives of Florida Statutes §§ 193.11(3) and 193.021 and 193.11 (1). Section 193.11(3) provides in part as follows:
Section 193.021 creates a measure of valuation designated "just valuation" which replaces the former standard of true or full cash value, and provides seven criteria for determining just value which may be summarized as present cash value, highest and best future use and present use, location, quantity or size, cost, condition, and income.
Section 193.11(1) provides in part:
The complaint alleged that if the plaintiff assessor used the factors provided in Section 193.021 for all lands in Broward County, as directed by Section 193.11(1), he would be in conflict with Section 193.11 (3) which prohibits the assessment of agricultural lands other than as agricultural and upon an acreage basis.
The Circuit Court entered summary final decree holding, inter alia, that Florida Statute § 193.11(3), F.S.A. is constitutional and that the Statutes in question are not in conflict with each other. The Court in its decision stated:
The Chancellor's conclusion harmonizes with our landmark decisions touching statutory construction. In Howarth v. City of DeLand[2] this court held:
This court in Palmquist v. Johnson[3] held it was the duty of the Court, in construing apparently conflicting statutes, to find a reasonable field of operation which may preserve the force and effect of each statute. In Curry v. Lehman,[4] the court held "It is to be presumed that different acts on the same subject passed at *529 the same session * * * should be construed each in the light of the other."
Accordingly, the final decree appealed from is affirmed.
ROBERTS, THORNAL, CALDWELL, ERVIN and HOBSON (Retired), JJ., concur.
DREW, C.J., dissents with opinion.
THOMAS, J., dissents.
DREW, Chief Justice (dissenting).
I dissent for reasons stated in my dissent in Lanier v. Overstreet, Fla., 175 So. 2d 521, filed May 21st, 1965.
[1]  See also, Tyson v. Lanier, 156 So. 2d 833 (Fla. 1963); Lanier v. Overstreet, Fla. 175 So. 2d 521. Opinion filed May 21, 1965, upholding validity of Fla. Stat. § 193.11(3).
[2]  117 Fla. 692, 701, 158 So. 294, 298 (1934).
[3]  41 So. 2d 313, 314 (Fla. 1949).
[4]  55 Fla. 847, 854; 47 So. 18, 21 (1908).