Case Name: PRESBYTERIAN HOMES OF the SYNOD OF FLORIDA, INC., A Non-Profit Corporation of Florida, Appellant, v. CITY OF BRADENTON, Manatee County, Florida, a Municipal Corporation, et al., Appellees; PRESBYTERIAN HOMES OF the SYNOD OF FLORIDA, INC., A Non-Profit Corporation of Florida, Appellant, v. MANATEE COUNTY, a Political Subdivision of the State of Florida, et al., Appellees
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1966-10-05
Citations: 190 So. 2d 771
Docket Number: Nos. 34232, 34233
Parties: PRESBYTERIAN HOMES OF the SYNOD OF FLORIDA, INC., A Non-Profit Corporation of Florida, Appellant, v. CITY OF BRADENTON, Manatee County, Florida, a Municipal Corporation, et al., Appellees. PRESBYTERIAN HOMES OF the SYNOD OF FLORIDA, INC., A Non-Profit Corporation of Florida, Appellant, v. MANATEE COUNTY, a Political Subdivision of the State of Florida, et al., Appellees.
Judges: THOMAS, DREW, O’CONNELL and CALDWELL, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 190
Pages: 771–777

Head Matter:
PRESBYTERIAN HOMES OF the SYNOD OF FLORIDA, INC., A Non-Profit Corporation of Florida, Appellant, v. CITY OF BRADENTON, Manatee County, Florida, a Municipal Corporation, et al., Appellees. PRESBYTERIAN HOMES OF the SYNOD OF FLORIDA, INC., A Non-Profit Corporation of Florida, Appellant, v. MANATEE COUNTY, a Political Subdivision of the State of Florida, et al., Appellees.
Nos. 34232, 34233.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Oct. 5, 1966.
Rehearing Denied Nov. 3, 1966.
Grimes, Grimes, Goebel & Parry, Braden-ton, and Black, Cobb, Cole & Crotty, Day-tona Beach, for appellant.
William J. Ray, Bradenton, for City of Bradenton.
Kenneth W. Cleary, of Schultz & Cleary, Bradenton, for Manatee County.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
These consolidated cases are before us on appeal from the decision of the Circuit Court for Manatee County which held that Bradenton Manor, owned and operated by appellant, a non-profit corporation, as a home for elderly people, is not exempt from taxation under Section 16, Article XVI of the Florida Constitution, F.S.A. The undisputed facts, as stated in the final decree, are:
"[Bradenton Manor] is a Home where retired elderly people may live in comfort in a Christian atmosphere with a Chapel, Library, Infirmary, Dining Hall and recreational facilities available.
"Founders fees of $5,000.00 per individual or $8,000.00 per couple are charged for those financially able to pay as determined by the Directors. Also those residents financially able to pay, as determined by the Directors, pay for their maintenance amounts ranging from $160.-00 to $290.00 per month dependent upon the space occupied. One person receives maintenance free and some 23 others pay .varying amounts less than $160.00 and the balance of a total of 156 persons pay full maintenance. There are other facts setting forth the humanitarian functions carried on and it appears the deficits in operation and amoritization [sic] of the mortgage are made up by donations from persons and churches within the Synod."
Upon those facts the Circuit Court concluded the Bradenton Manor property was not held and used exclusively for religious, scientific, municipal, educational, literary or charitable purposes within the meaning of Section 16, Article XVI of the Florida Constitution and, therefore, was not exempt from taxation.
The Court rejected appellant's argument that, although the property could not qualify under any one of the separate exemptions, it did qualify through a combination of all the exemptions, and held:
"Since taxation is the rule and exemption is the exception the Court is not inclined to enlarge by construction, nor implication something that neither the Legislature nor the framers of the Constitution have not written in clear and definite terms. It appears that the novel theory of the combined purposes for exemption which is urged upon the Court would if the Court were to grant the exemption he an extension or enlargement of the exemption presently granted by the Constitution and Statutes of the State of Florida, and the Court is unwilling to so rule."
We agree. The decision of the Circuit Court is, therefore, affirmed.
THOMAS, DREW, O'CONNELL and CALDWELL, JJ., concur.
ROBERTS, J., dissents with opinion.
ERVIN, J., dissents with opinion.
THORNAL, C. J., dissents and agrees with ROBERTS and ERVIN, JJ.
. Compare,
Hungerford Convalescent Hospital Ass'n v. Osborn, 150 So.2d 230 (Fla.1963); Miami Battle Creek v. Lummus, 140 Fla. 718, 192 So. 211 (1939), with Haines v. St. Petersburg Methodist Home, Inc., 173 So.2d 176 (Fla.App.2d) cert. denied, Fla., 183 So.2d 211 (1965).