Case Name: FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, an agency of the State of Florida, Appellant, v. Joseph A. DeMARIA, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1975-11-05
Citations: 321 So. 2d 101
Docket Number: No. Y-104
Parties: FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, an agency of the State of Florida, Appellant, v. Joseph A. DeMARIA, Appellee.
Judges: RAWLS, Acting C. J., and MILLS, J., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 321
Pages: 101–102

Head Matter:
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, an agency of the State of Florida, Appellant, v. Joseph A. DeMARIA, Appellee.
No. Y-104.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Nov. 5, 1975.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., James D. Whisenand and Joseph C. Millichamp, III, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellant.
Shalle Stephen Fine, Miami, for appel-lee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The Order of the learned trial judge is adopted as the opinion of this Court, viz:
"Decision of this case turns upon the answer to this question:
'Does a deed by which a corporation transfers real estate to its sole stockholder, subject to an outstanding mortgage which the stockholder does not "assume," but which he pays, require a Florida documentary stamp tax ?'
"The answer is 'No.'
"This question was squarely presented to the Supreme Court in the case of State ex rel. Palmer-Florida Corporation v. Green, Fla., 88 So.2d 493, and that Court held that such a deed does not require documentary stamps.
"The Department of Revenue seeks to distinguish that case by-pointing out that the deed there considered was not made subject to a mortgage which the grantee paid. It points out that the Court then observed that with respect to a deed from a corporation to its stockholders of unencumbered land, the stockholders did not pay a 'reasonable determinable consideration' for the conveyance as contemplated by Sec. 201.02, Florida Statutes. It also cites Kendall House Apartments, Inc. v. Department of Revenue, [Fla.], 245 So.2d 221, Resberry [Rasberry] v. Dickinson [Fla.App.], 243 So.2d 236, and River Park Joint Venture 315076 v. Dickinson, Leon County # 72-1699.
"These cases distinguish Palmer-Florida Corporation v. Green, supra, to the extent that the decision in that case turned upon a lack of consideration.
"However, Palmer-Florida Corporation v. Green also holds that under the circumstances of that case (identical with the cases at bar except for the mortgage) 'the deed in question did not re quire documentary stamps because the grantees were not purchasers .' The Court also said 'We find no legal support for the theory that the documentary stamp tax should be measured by the market value of the land transferred. It was a mere book transaction and was in no sense a sale to a "purchaser" as contemplated by Section 201.02, Florida Statutes, F.S.A.'
"These quotations lead to the conclusion that it was the nature of the transaction, rather than the difficulty in measuring the tax that rendered the deed exempt from documentary stamps."
Affirmed.
RAWLS, Acting C. J., and MILLS, J., concur.
SMITH, J., dissents.