2seaoat wrote:In 2011 the Supreme Court denied review based on the prior precedent of equitable title on the Navarre Beach and the airport cases........this is not about me being right, it is simply about what the court decided. The current case and the distinction between the leasehold land versus improvements has zero bearing on the underlying principle of equitable title which brought taxation to Santa Rosa Island in the first place. It is what it is and it is exactly what I argued a decade ago as a single voice against a mob of ignorance.
Did I refer to airport cases? No, I believe it was clear I was saying that none of the subsequent ISLAND tax cases was decided based on the principle of equitable ownership. (Specifically, I said, BBM, "...no other judge in any of the other cases
as to either beach used equitable ownership as the principle on which the decisions were based. That's the simple truth.") And just because you've cited a brief filed in the airport case that mentions the Navarre Beach improvements case doesn't prove anything as to what the Court's actual ruling in the airport case was based on. But don't bother looking up the ruling, because, again, it can't prove me wrong in what I stated regarding the local island cases (NB and PB).
As for my saying in the past that you were full of chit as to taxation, that's a gross oversimplification. What I ALWAYS said was that the mindset of the recent courts was to impose taxes on the leases, whether or not I considered taxation valid -- which wasn't the point -- and that's precisely why I didn't waste time arguing against taxes -- not that I begged for them, certainly -- as much as I instead worked/argued in favor of title, which you agreed with. My fellow leaseholders wouldn't support me in the title push then, as they were adamant they didn't/wouldn't owe taxes in the end, and/or that asking for title was an admission they were losers. Pitiful. We could've had title long ago and been done with this crap.
What "current case" are you referring to??
Taxation of the land on Navarre Beach was ruled valid specifically because the language of those particular leases virtually guaranteed perpetual renewability. That was the principle cited in the ruling that stood.
The major Pensacola Beach land tax suit was withdrawn due to lack of participation by the leaseholders following the ruling as to Navarre Beach land -- it never even went before the courts -- and PB leaseholders paid tax on the land until the more recent, separate Portofino case which took a gratis hint from the Supremes to look into renewability. Since the Navarre land tax decision was based on "automatic renewability" (my words), the savvy attorneys for Portofino argued that their lease did not provide for such perpetual renewability at all, but only some vague "negotiability" that did not constitute a forever guarantee -- and they won.
After that, the Escambia property appraiser (Chris Jones) looked at every PB lease agreement and, for those whose renewal language approximated Portofino's non-guaranteed renewal, provided an exemption for taxation on the land -- mine included. Again, equitable ownership per se -- with all the factors defining such as originally put forth by Judge Rasmussen in the Navarre Beach improvements case -- was not the stated basis of the Navarre land tax ruling -- only the principle of perpetual renewability.
The major Pensacola Beach ruling in favor of taxation of improvements -- handled by earlier, less skillful attorneys -- was based entirely on the old legal principle (probably, according to Ed Fleming, derived from old WWII barracks leases) -- the name of which legal precedent I forget at the moment -- that the owner (the County) would never have the opportunity of reclaiming -- i.e., having beneficial use -- of the improvements because they would deteriorate before the lease ended, such that beneficial use resided to a greater extent in the lessee than the lessor. This is B.S., of course, because the leases require not only that any improvements be maintained for the life of the lease, BUT that they be rebuilt if destroyed. But our early attorneys never argued the latter points, and lost.
Thus all PB improvements, even though built by the leaseholders and titled forthwith to the County (terrible!), are forever taxable to the leaseholders. Equitable ownership, again, was not the principle cited in the decision.
Many people of course feel that there should be no difference in rulings as to land vs. improvements, but that's not how it went down. Different attorneys, different arguments, different lower court judges reviewing the differing legal principles/precedents cited -- it all ended up one big mish mash -- another reason why title will be a boon, presuming many if not most leaseholders opt for it -- even those, like me, who would now have to pay taxes on currently exempt land.
My point is that you don't know the half of it, sir, despite pretending to, as you so often do. So we may as well drop all this. Or keep rehashing, if you prefer. I think I've said all I can say. (Thanks again, knothead.
)
Home
