Legal Corner

Litigation Watch Pending Trial Court Cases

Brevard County v. Department of Revenue
Case No. 37-2007-CA-002244
Leon County - Second Judicial Circuit

On August 21, 2007, Brevard County filed suit against DOR. The main issue in the case is how DOR applied the calculation factors in HB 1B to Brevard's fire MSTU. DOR calculated the county's compound annual growth rate in total county ad valorem taxes levied from FY 2001-02 to FY 2006-07 by excluding taxes levied through the county's MSTU in those years. The county objected but DOR asserted that its treatment of the MSTU levy was based on another section of HB 1B (now sec. 200.185(4)(d)) which treats fire MSTUs as independent special districts for purposes of calculating "maximum millage rates" but not, according to the county, the "compound growth rate". The county relies upon the language of new sec. 200.001(8)(j) which states that "total county ad valorem taxes levied means all property taxes other than voted levies levied by a county any municipal service taxing units of that county, and any special districts dependent to that county in a fiscal year." Id.

The harm to the county with DOR's interpretation is that over the comparison years for the compound annual growth rate, the county reduced the taxes received from its fire MSTU by almost $8 million. The error places the county currently at the lowest possible maximum millage rate, set at 91% of the rolled-back rate.

The suit does not challenge the validity of the property tax relief legislation nor does it take issue with the Legislature. The suit is narrowly tailored to the calculation of its fire MSTU millage by DOR in applying the legislation.

All pleadings may be viewed on-line at the following link to the Leon County Clerk of Court's "High Profile Cases" www.clerk.leon.fl.us/index.php?section=2&server=image&page=high_profile/index.asp


Lanning v. Pilcher
Case No. 37-2007-CA-000582
Leon County - Second Judicial Circuit

This past spring, a proposed class of plaintiffs filed suit in the Lanning v. Pilcher case, against Okaloosa and Walton Counties, among others. The plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of the Save Our Homes assessment cap on homestead properties under the Commerce, Equal Protection and the Privileges & Immunities Clauses of the U.S. Constitution. The complaint sought to certify a class of plaintiffs of out-of-state residential property owners and sought to certify a class of defendants to include ALL property taxing entities in the state, defined as "the ad valorem real property taxing authorities appraising, levying, implementing, collecting and benefiting from ad valorem property taxes in the remaining unnamed counties of Florida, exclusive of taxing authorities imposing less than 1 mill in ad valorem real property taxes." After a hearing on motions to dismiss, filed by the defendant governmental entities, the judge dismissed the complaint, opining that at least one case in Florida has already upheld the classification scheme of the Save Our Homes cap ("the Renish case") and that a U.S. Supreme Court case out of California has also upheld a similar cap, commonly known as "Prop 13" ("the Nordlinger case). The dismissal came on Monday, August 6. The court is still working on the written opinion. The defendant governmental entities anticipate that the plaintiffs will appeal the decision.

All pleadings may be viewed on-line at the following link to the Leon County Clerk of Court's "High Profile Cases" website: www.clerk.leon.fl.us/index.php?section=2&server=image&page=high_profile/ index.asp


Palm Beach County v. Boca Raton
Case No. 2005-CA-009338-XXXX-MB-AE
Palm Beach County - Fifteenth Judicial Circuit

In June, the circuit court in Palm Beach County ruled that the county violated the dual taxation protection provision of the Florida Constitution (Art. VIII, sec. 1(h), Fla. Const.). The county funds its fire rescue dispatch services with countywide ad valorem tax revenue. However, 13 municipalities in the county provide their own fire rescue dispatch as well. Before 2005, the county dispatch system served between 12 and 15 of the county's 37 municipalities, handling 90,000 emergency calls. In 2007, the county system serves 23 municipalities, handling 120,000 emergency calls. These statistics account for 95 percent of the county's geographic area and 75 percent of the county's population.

Up until 2004, the county funded its dispatch through an MSTU with a small amount of funding from countywide revenues. Between 2004 and 2006, the county chose to fund the dispatch system with countywide ad valorem tax revenues. In exchange for the countywide revenues, the county offers 12 articulated benefits to those municipalities that have their own systems, including, by way of example, mutual aid, hazmat, explosive ordinances, trauma hawk, and a radio talk group hospital notification system. The court ruled, however, that these services did not amount to a "real and substantial benefit" to survive constitutional scrutiny. In addition, the court ruled that the county's "voluntary incentive plan", designed to induce municipal participation by offering to furnish certain equipment to the municipalities was a violation of the Constitution's dual referenda requirement for the transfer of powers under Article VIII, section 4, Florida Constitution.

A copy of the circuit court's order is provided here [PDF]