Deltona Corporation v. Bailey

Summary

The Florida Supreme Court reviewed the dismissal of Deltona Corporation's amended complaint seeking ad valorem real property tax relief and addressed related discovery orders. The court held that the Rose law applied to the 1974 tax year, although Deltona needed to amend its pleading under the statute; it upheld dismissal of the equal-protection and due-process counts. The court reversed the discovery ruling in part and remanded for individualized consideration of the interrogatories under the good-cause standard.

Holdings

1. The prospective-effect ruling in Interlachen Lake Estates, Inc. v. Snyder operated from December 9, 1974, when that decision became final after rehearing; therefore, taxpayers were entitled to the benefit of section 195.062, Florida Statutes (1973), for the 1974 tax year because the tax lien arose on January 1, 1974.
2. Count I failed to state a cause of action because it alleged that Deltona had not sold more than 60 percent of the platted lots, rather than alleging that 60 percent of the lands included in each plat had not been sold as individual lots. The dismissal was nevertheless improper insofar as it was with prejudice, because Deltona was entitled to leave to amend.
3. Deltona failed to state an equal-protection claim because it did not allege that all or substantially all other property in the county was systematically assessed below the level of its property or that it was singled out and specifically discriminated against in comparison with taxpayers generally.
4. Deltona failed to state a due-process claim because its own allegations showed that it received assessment notices, timely petitioned for administrative review, received notice of a hearing, and obtained a hearing before the Board of Tax Adjustment, without alleging that the statutory notice or review procedures were not followed.
5. The pendency of unresolved motions to dismiss does not, by itself, constitute good cause under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(c) for postponing discovery for a protracted period. On remand, the trial court had to consider each interrogatory individually and enter only such protective order as necessary to prevent oppression, undue burden, or expense.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Rose law applied to Deltona's 1974 tax year despite the statute's prior constitutional invalidation being given prospective effect.
2. Whether Deltona adequately pleaded a cause of action under section 195.062, Florida Statutes (1973).
3. Whether Deltona adequately pleaded an equal-protection claim based on allegedly disproportionate property assessments.
4. Whether Deltona adequately pleaded a due-process claim based on allegedly insufficient assessment notice and administrative review.
5. Whether the trial court improperly postponed discovery for the period during which motions to dismiss were pending.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded