Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

jurisdictionprecedentappealtrial
jurisdictionappealtrialappellant

Related Cases

Lanning v. Pilcher, 16 So.3d 294, 34 Fla. L. Weekly D1727
View Case »
Hooven & Allison Co. v. Lindley, 4 Ohio St.3d 169, 447 N.E.2d 1295, 5 ITRD 1213, 4 O.B.R. 410
View Case »
Lanning v. Pilcher, 16 So.3d 294, 34 Fla. L. Weekly D1727
View Case »
California State Teachers’ Retirement System v. County of Los Angeles, 216 Cal.App.4th 41, 156 Cal.Rptr.3d 545, 13 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4592, 2013 Daily Journal D.A.R. 5857
View Case »
Dennis v. Higgins, 498 U.S. 439, 111 S.Ct. 865, 112 L.Ed.2d 969, 59 USLW 4117
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Bruner v. Hartsfield, 23 So.3d 192, 34 Fla. L. Weekly D2366

Facts

Taxpayers brought a federal constitutional challenge against the Save Our Homes Amendment (SOHA) and Amendment 1, which pertained to the assessment of homestead property. The SOHA capped the annual increase in assessed value of homestead property, while Amendment 1 allowed a portion of a homesteader's exemption to be portable to new properties. The Circuit Court dismissed the complaint with prejudice, leading to an appeal by the taxpayers and a cross-appeal by state and county officials.

Appellants seek reversal of the final order which dismissed with prejudice their second amended complaint challenging the constitutionality of certain portions of section 4, Article VII of the Florida Constitution. More particularly, appellants have challenged the constitutionality of (i) the “Save Our Homes Amendment” (SOHA) which placed a cap on the amount the assessed value of homestead property could be increased annually, and (ii) Amendment 1, adopted by popular referendum in 2008, which, among other things, made a portion of a homesteader's existing exemption portable to newly-purchased homestead property.

Issue

Did the Save Our Homes Amendment (SOHA) and Amendment 1 violate federal constitutional provisions, and did the trial court have subject matter jurisdiction over the challenge?

Did the Save Our Homes Amendment (SOHA) and Amendment 1 violate federal constitutional provisions, and did the trial court have subject matter jurisdiction over the challenge?

Rule

The court applied precedents from Reinish v. Clark and Lanning v. Pilcher, which held that similar constitutional challenges to SOHA were previously rejected and that the trial court had jurisdiction despite procedural issues.

This court has already considered and rejected virtually identical constitutional challenges to SOHA in Reinish v. Clark, 765 So.2d 197 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000), and Lanning v. Pilcher, 16 So.3d 294 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009).

Analysis

The court found that the constitutional challenges to SOHA had already been addressed in prior cases, and the arguments presented by the taxpayers did not provide new grounds for reconsideration. The court also affirmed the trial court's jurisdiction based on established legal precedents.

Accordingly, we affirm the final order of dismissal.

Conclusion

The District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the complaint with prejudice, concluding that the amendments were constitutional and that the trial court had proper jurisdiction.

The appeal and cross-appeal are AFFIRMED.

Who won?

The state and county officials prevailed in the case because the court upheld the constitutionality of the amendments and affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the complaint.

The District Court of Appeal held that: 1 amendments did not violate federal constitution, and 2 trial court had subject matter jurisdiction over the challenge.

You must be