Case Name: James L. RODEN, etc., et al., Petitioners, v. K & K LAND MANAGEMENT, INC., a corporation, Respondent
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1978-07-20
Citations: 368 So. 2d 588
Docket Number: No. 51954
Parties: James L. RODEN, etc., et al., Petitioners, v. K & K LAND MANAGEMENT, INC., a corporation, Respondent.
Judges: ENGLAND, C. J., and SUNDBERG and HATCHETT, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 368
Pages: 588–590

Head Matter:
James L. RODEN, etc., et al., Petitioners, v. K & K LAND MANAGEMENT, INC., a corporation, Respondent.
No. 51954.
Supreme Court of Florida.
July 20, 1978.
Rehearing Denied March 22, 1979.
Michael D. Martin of Martin & Martin, Lakeland, for James L. Roden.
R. Lawrence DeFrances, Ad Valorem Tax Counsel, and Zollie Maynard, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for Dept, of Revenue, petitioners.
R. Lee Bennett of Lowndes, Peirsol, Drosdick & Doster, Orlando, for respondent.
C. A. Boswell and M. David Alexander of Boswell, Boswell & Conner, Bartow, for CF Mining Corp., amicus curiae.
Martha W. Barnett of Holland & Knight, Lakeland, for First Mississippi Corp., ami-cus curiae.

Opinion:
BOYD, Justice.
The decision of the District Court of Appeal in this cause, Straughn v. K & K Land Management, Inc., 347 So.2d 724 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977), conflicts with the decision in First National Bank of Hollywood v. Markham, 342 So.2d 1016 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). We have jurisdiction of the petition for certiorari. Article V, Section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution.
The issue in conflict is whether more than just agricultural use is required to establish for purpose of tax assessment that land may be classified agricultural and be entitled, therefore, to preferential tax treatment. In Straughn v. Tuck, 354 So.2d 368 (Fla.1978), we reviewed the constitutionality of Section 193.461(3), Florida Statutes. The statute mandates that to gain "agricultural" classification land must be "actually used for a bona fide agricultural purpose," Section 193.461(3)(a), which means "good faith commercial agricultural use of the land." Section 193.461(3)(b). In the course of the opinion upholding the statute the following was stated, at 370: " 'use' is still the guidepost in classifying land, although other specifically enumerated factors relative to use may also be considered. Agricultural use is now and has always been the test." We adhere to this view. As we intimated in Tuck the factors listed in subsection (b) of Section 193.461(3) are to be considered in making the determination of good faith agricultural use but none is determinative. We disapprove of Markham to the extent it conflicts with Tuck. This resolves the conflict between Markham and this case, too.
A problem not present in Markham and Tuck is present in this case. Sale of land for a purchase price three or more times greater than its agricultural assessment creates a presumption that the land is not used for good faith agricultural purposes. Section 193.461(3), Florida Statutes. The presumption may be overcome "[u]pon a showing of special circumstances by the landowner demonstrating that the land is to be continued in bona fide agriculture." In this case the'District Court upheld the trial court's determination that there existed special circumstances sufficient to rebut the presumption. As the Department of Revenue has done before, it stresses that commercial success is a necessary circumstance for rebuttal. We reject this notion. As we stated in Straughn v. K & K Land Management, 326 So.2d 421 (Fla.1976), "special circumstances" may be drawn from the factors for consideration in the classification process listed in Section 193.461(3)(b). The presence of all or any one factor in particular is not necessary for the presumption's rebuttal.
In this ease K & K Land Management purchased approximately 350 acres of producing citrus grove for six times the agricultural assessment. Twenty-five of the acres were developed into an amusement park, but the remainder of the grove was continued to be used for citrus production. The issue was whether the presumption of nonagricultural use in Section 193.-461(4)(c) was overcome as to the acreage continued for citrus production. On the record before us, we cannot say the trial court found incorrectly that the presumption had been rebutted and that respondent was entitled to agricultural classification.
The decision of the District Court is affirmed. First National Bank of Hollywood v. Markham, 342 So.2d 1016 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977), is disapproved.
It is so ordered.
ENGLAND, C. J., and SUNDBERG and HATCHETT, JJ., concur.
ALDERMAN, J., concurs in result only.
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
The motion of petitioner Florida Department of Revenue for rehearing or clarification is denied.
It is so ordered.
ADKINS, BOYD, OVERTON and HATCHETT, JJ., concur.
ALDERMAN, J., dissents with an opinion, with which ENGLAND, C. J., and SUNDBERG, J., concur.