Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...Certainly the statutes under consideration do not mandate that the taxpayers' leasehold interest be assessed at less than or a percentage of just value. This proposition has been recognized in the case of Straughn v. Amoco Production Company, 309 So.2d 39 (Fla.App.2d 1975) where the court there had under consideration Section 193.481(1), Florida Statutes, *431 relating to oil and mineral leases....

...estate, the mineral estate is dominant and as such its owner has the right of ingress and egress to explore, locate and remove minerals. Our Legislature has also recognized that severed mineral rights constitute a valuable vested property interest. Section 193.481(1), Florida Statutes, F.S.A., provides in pertinent part: "(1) Whenever the mineral, oil, gas, and other subsurface rights in or to real property in this state shall have been sold or otherwise transferred by the owner of such real pr...

...o the 1885 Constitution, adopted in 1930) of certain industrial plants, has an innovation as far-reaching as the one expressed in the majority opinion been seriously considered in Florida. NOTES [1] Fla. Const. art. XVII, § 4 (1885). [2] Fla. Stat. § 193.481, F.S.A....

...es Commission 1.6015 % City of Tallahassee 1.3333 % Seminole Electric Cooperative, Inc. 1.6994 % Florida Power Corporation 90.4473 % [3] The Legislature, however, has provided for the separation of interests in property in other contexts. See, e.g., § 193.481 (mineral, oil, gas and other subsurface rights treated as a separate interest in real property subject to taxation separate and apart from the fee simple ownership of the property); § 196.031 (exemption of homestead in various amounts depending on circumstances)....

...Himes, of Carlton, Fields, Ward, Emmanuel, Smith & Cutler, Tampa, on behalf of un-named oil companies, amicus curiae. McNULTY, Chief Judge. In this declaratory judgment action we are called upon to determine whether a leasehold interest in oil, gas and minerals is subject to ad valorem real property taxation under § 193.481, F.S....

...He accordingly ruled in favor of plaintiff-appellee Amoco and this appeal ensued. To a degree the trial court was correct as far as he went, but had he made a closer analysis we think he would have reached a different conclusion. We must therefore reverse. We begin with the pertinent statute. Section 193.481(1), F.S....

...[4] In other common instances of "bootstrapping" salt water has been legislatively declared "fresh," and vice versa, for purposes of game and fish conservation and dry land has been declared submerged land and non-navigable waters navigable for similarly valid purposes. We would not be offended, therefore, if § 193.481(1), supra, does indeed declare oil, gas and mineral leases to be sufficient interests or estates in real property to warrant ad valorem taxation as real property. Such a declaration would meet the test of a reasonable classification for a valid public purpose. *42 The final question remaining is whether § 193.481(1), supra, does precisely that....

...ecifics save those expressly excluded. It is obvious to us, then, that the failure to exclude leasehold interests from the present statute was purposeful and that the legislature clearly intended to include them. [8] Moreover, we think the fact that § 193.481(1), supra, contemplates interests "separate and apart from the fee" further bolsters this conclusion; for if the legislature did not intend to include leasehold interests, then what other such "separate" interests indeed? In view of our co...

...value or in kind of the oil, gas and minerals so produced. Local county tax assessors assessed the value of the oil companies' interests in the leases for the purpose of levying against them county ad valorem taxes for 1973. The counties acted under Section 193.481(1), Florida Statutes (1973), which provides: "193.481 Assessment of oil, mineral, and other subsurface rights — (1) Whenever the mineral, oil, gas, and other subsurface rights in or to real property in this state shall have been sold or otherwise transferred by the owner of such real property,...

...We have jurisdiction of all the cases because of conflict between the two decisions. Article V, Section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution. Preliminarily we agree with the Second District Court that Miller v. Carr has no influence here. At the time of that decision Section 193.481(1) had not been enacted....

...c land as real property for ad valorem tax purposes. Indeed, the oil companies concede that the Legislature has the inherent power to define real property for tax purposes. Their argument is that the Legislature did not clearly do so by enactment of Section 193.481(1), Florida Statutes....

...and owning oil, gas, sulfur and all other minerals. Each contains additional provisions which grant an easement for exploration and production of minerals and further provides for termination of the lease. Appellants contend that the Legislature, by § 193.481(1), Florida Statutes, directed that such a lease be treated as an interest in real property and subject to ad valorem taxation by the county in which the land lies. § 193.481(1) provides as follows: "Whenever the mineral, oil, gas, and other subsurface rights in or to real property in this state shall have been sold or otherwise transferred by the owner of such real property, or retained or acquired through res...

...See Coastal Petroleum Company v. Secretary of the Army of the United States of America, U.S.Dist.Ct. So.Dist. Co. of Fla., Case No. 68-951-Civ.Ca. and 69-699-Civ.Ca. (unreported). *78 The defendants contend that when in the course of a 1963 amendment to the predecessor of Section 193.481, the words `not to include a leasehold interest in said subsurface rights' were deleted from the statute, this evidenced a legislative intent to subject oil, gas and mineral leases to separate taxation....

...By using the term "subsurface rights," however, we have an ambiguity. Perhaps the Legislature intended it to include a leasehold interest, but from the terminology used, such is far from clear. As pointed out by the court below, § 193.221, Florida Statutes, 1961, (predecessor to § 193.481) specifically excluded leasehold interests in subsurface rights from imposition of the tax....

...s to accurately ascertain the true value of oil and gas in place and taxation thereof is more certainly accomplished after its capture or severance from the earth or water ..." In view of the foregoing and the ambiguities which we have alluded to in § 193.481, Florida Statutes, we at least have strong doubts that the Legislature specifically intended that oil, gas, and mineral leases be subject to ad valorem taxation. Appellant tax assessor evidently also had such doubts when the Legislature amended § 193.481(1), Florida Statutes in 1963 as the assessment here challenged was not made until 1973....

while it is correct in stating that, under section 193.481, Florida Statutes, subsurface rights may be

the Fifth District Court of Appeal declaring section 193.481, Florida Statutes (1981), to be unconstitutional

the foregoing statute are the provisions of Section 193.481 (formerly § 193.221), first enacted in 1957

subsurface rights are subject to separate taxation. Section 193.481, F.S. Prior to the enactment of s 193.481,

administration, penalties and procedures; amending section 193.481, Florida Statutes, to provide for separate

the surface parcel or the subsurface parcel. Section 193.481(4), F.S., expressly recognizes the continued

This case involves the constitutionality of section 193.481, Florida Statutes (1982), which imposes ad

Supreme Court held earlier in this case1 that Section 193.-481(1)2 subjects “separated” oil, gas, and *414mineral