MARSHAL: PLEASE RISE . HEAR YE.HEAR YE.HEAR YE. THE SUPREME COURT OF THEGREAT STATE OF FLORIDA IS NOW IN SESSION . ALL WHO HAVE CAUSE TO PLEA , DRAW NEAR , GIVE ATTENTION AND YOU SHALL BE HEARD. GOD SAVE THE UNITED STATES , THE G REAT AND THIS HONORABLECOURT.LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT. PLEASE BE SE ATED.

CHIEF JUSTICE: G OOD MORNING , LADIES ANDGENTLEMEN, AND WELCOME TO THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT. THE FIRST CASE ON THE DOCK ET THIS MORN ING I S DeWITT CASON VERSUS FL ORIDA DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES. ARE THE PARTIES READY? ALL RIGH T.

MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT. MY NAME IS GEORGE REEVES , AND I REPRESENT THE PETITIONER IN THIS ACTION . MR . COUNSEL T ABLE MR . AJ DECKER , ALSO REPRESENTING THE PETITIONER AND THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CLERKOF THE COURT OF COLUMBIA COUNTY IN ITS OFFICIAL CAPACITY. THIS IS T O DO W ITH CHILD SUPPORT O RDER ENTERING FINALSUMMARY JUDGMENT WHERE THESTATE OF FLORIDA HAD FILED A CASE SEE KING T O ENJOIN THE ISSUANCE OF A TAX DEED AFTER A TAX CERTIFIC ATE HAD ALREADY BEEN IS SUED AND THE CERTIFICATE HO LDER HAD APPLIED F OR THE ISSU ANCE OF THE TAX DEED. THE CIRCUIT COURT ENTERED FINAL SUMMARY JU DGMENT AGAINST THE ST ATE, BECAUSE IT DETERMINED THAT THE STATEHAD NOT COMPLIED WITH THE NONCLAIM STAT UTE APPLICABLE TO CHALKINGS FOR ASSESSMENTS OF --

CHIEF JUSTICE: THAT IS N OT IN DISPUTE, CORRECT?

THERE IS NO FACTUAL DISPUTE. AFFIDAVITS WERE FILED ESTABLISHING ALL OF THEDATES AND THIS WAS FILEDALMOST A YEAR AFTER THE 60 DAYS.

CHIEF JUSTICE: AND IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THE FACT WHETHER THIS PROPERTY IS OWNED BY THE STATE.

THAT HAS NOT YET BEEN DETERMINED, YOUR HONOR, BECAUSE FINAL SUMM ARY JUDGMENT WAS ENTERED EVEN BEFORE AN ANSWER WAS FILED. THE REASONING OF THE COURT WAS IT DIDN'T M ATTER WH ETHER IT WAS OPENED BY THE STATEOR NOT . -- WHETHER IT WAS OWNED BY THE STATE OR NOT .

CHIEF JUST ICE: SO DE ALING WITH TWO CONFLICTING POLICY ISSUES?

WE D ON'T FEEL THERE ARE CONFLICTING , I AND THERE ARE POLICY ISSUES TO BE EXPLORED , BUT SINCE THERE IS NO CONFLICT, WE DON'T THINK IT IS NEC ESSARY TO DE LVE INTO POLICY . STATUTE 401 SUBSECTION 2 REQUIRES THAT NO AC TIONS BE BROUGHT S I NCE 30 D AYS AFTERTHE TAX RO LL. IT B RINGS N O DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CHALLENGE OF PR IVATE , GOVERNMENT OR ANY OTHER WAY .

JUSTICE : IS THERE A DIFFERENCE IN OUR LAW BETWEEN EXEMPTIONS AND IMMUNITY FROM TAXATION?

THERE IS A DIFFERENCE, AND THIS COURT HAS FOUNDSUCH A DIFF ERENCE, BUT WE D ON'T THINK THAT DIFFERENCE IS MATERIAL IN THIS CASE BECAUSE THE STATUTE AT ISSUE DEPRIVED THE COURTS OF JURISDICTION WHO W OULD CONSIDER THE ISSUE OF WHETHER OR NOT THE ASSESSMENT WAS PROP ER. F URTHER --

JUSTICE: I GUESS THE CORE ON LARRY QUESTION I S IT RELATES -- I GUESS THE CORE LATER QUESTION IS IT - - COROLARY RE LATES TO IT RELATES ON LY TO EXEMPTSS AND IT WOU LDN'T AP PLY TO IMMUNITY IN THIS STATE.

WE DIDN'T THINK THAT WOULD BE THE CASE. YOUR HONOR, IN THE WARD VERSUS BROWN DECISION IT WAS HELD BY THIS COURT THAT , W HETHER CHALLENGED FOREXEMPTION , IMMUNITY OR ANY OTHER RE ASON , IT WOULD BE UNDER THE BROWN STATUTE.

CHIEF JUSTICE: IF WE HELD BROWN, WE WOULDN'T BE HERE TODAY , IF W E SPECIFICALLY HELD THAT IMMUNITY TA KES SOMEONE OU T OF THE NON-CLAIM STATUTE , WE WOULDN'T --

THAT IS OUR POSITION. THE FIRST DCA DIDN'T SEEM TO AGO GREECHLT THEY SEEMED TOFEEL THAT THESE STATUTES WOULDN'T APPLY TO THE STA TUTE , WH ICH WE DISAGREE .

JUSTICE: WARD AND BROWN DIDN'T DEAL WITH THE STATE.

IT DID NOT.

JUSTICE: MY CONCERN IS THAT IT JUST D O ESN'T LOGICALLY FOLL OW THAT , IF THE STATE IS IMMUNE FROM TAXATION , OR THE FEDERALGOVERNMENT IS IMMUNE FROM TAXATION , THAT A STATUTEHAVING TO DO WITH ASSESSMENT OF TAXES IS GOING TO APPLY , BECAUSE OF THE IMMUNITY. IT JUST SEEMS VERY SI MPLE SYLIGISM TO ME.

THE QUESTION , YOUR HONOR , IS WHETHER OR NOT THE LEGISLATURE INTENDED 171.792, THE NON-CLAIM STATUTE, TO APPLY TO EVER YONE IN THESTATE.

JUSTICE: COULD THE LEGISLATURE OVERCOME THE STATE'S IMMUNITY?

YES. IT CERTAINLY SCHOOL AND THE FIRST DC -- IT CERTAINLY COULD, AND THE FIRST DCAFOUND THAT IT COULD WAIVE THE STATE'S IMMUNITY FROM TAXATION.

JUSTICE: IF YOU WAIVE THAT, THE LEGISLATURE , WOULD YOU AGREE, WOULD HAVE TO DO THAT EXPRESSLY?

WE FEEL THEY HAVE AND THIS IS WHY , THEY E N ACTED CREATING THE TIME L IMIT AFTER TWO VERY IMPORTANT THINGS HAD HAPPENED. FIRST OFF THE LEGISLATURE ENACTED 95.011 WHICH SAID THAT ALL STATUT ORY TIME L IMITS APPLY TO THE STATE JUST AS THEY WOULD APPLY TO A PE RSON. THAT WAS ENA CTED A DECADE BEFORE, SO THAT STATUTE IS ON THE BOOKS AND A FUNDAMENTAL RULE OF CONSTRUCTION IS THAT THELEGISLATURE IS DEEMED TO BE A WARE OF ALL PRIOR STATUTES,SO THEY HAD TO KNOW THAT THEY HAD ALREADY ENACTED A STATUTE MAKING THE STATESUBJECT TO THESE TIME FRAMES.

CHIEF JUSTICE: TH OSE ARE STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS NOT JURISDICTIONAL BAR .

BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT THELANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE S AYS. THE STATUTE SAYS A CIVILACTION OR PROCEEDING INCLUDING ONE BROUGHT BY THE STATE IS B A RRED , UNLESS THEGOVERNMENT IN THE TIME PRESCRIBED IN THIS CHAPTER , 95 OR ELSEWHERE IN THE STATUTE.

CHIEF JUSTICE: DOESN'T THE STATUTE ONLY APPLY TO TAXPAYERS, AND IF THE STATE IS NOT A TAXPAYER, AG AIN, HOW CAN IT APPLY TO THEM ?

I AG REE IT APPLIES TO TAXPAYERS.I AGREE IF THE STATE IS NOTA TAXP AYER, IT DOES NOT APPLY TO THIS. IN THIS CASE THE STATE IS A TAXPAYER BECAUSE A TAXPAYER IS A TERM OF ART. IN CHAPTER 192 THE TAXPAYER IS STATUTORYLY DE FINED AS THE PERSON IN WHOSE N AME THE PROPERTY IS ASS ESSED AND IT FURTHER GOES ON TO COM MAND PRO PERTY APPRAISERS TO ASSESS ALL PRO PERTY INCLUDING PROPERTY NOT SUBJECT TO TAX. THAT IS WHY IF YOU P ULL UP THE WEB SITE FOR LEON COUNTY , THE COURTHOUSE HAS AN ASSESSMENT ON IT. THEY DON'T-TAXES. THEY ARE NOT T RYING TO -- THEY DON'T OWE TAXES. THEY ARE NOT TR YING TO COLLECT TAXES BUT THEY ARE ASSESSED.

JUSTICE: THE STATE IS E XEMPT FROM TAXATION , CORRECT?

YES, MA'AM.

JUSTICE: AND TH EN YOU HAVE TO FIND SOME SPECIFIC STATUTE WHICH WOULD ALLOW TAXATION , AND SO PO INT TO ME THE SPECIFIC STATUTE IN THIS CASE, T HAT WOULD ALLOW TAXATION OF THIS PROPERTY.

WELL , WE DON'T POINT TO ANY SPEC IFIC STATUTE RIGHTNOW, BECA USE IT IS IN DISPUTE AS TO WHETHER OR NOTTHE STATE EVEN OWNS THE PROPERTY, BUT I DISAGREE WITH THE ANALYSIS THAT WE HAVE TO POIN T TO A STATUTE , AND I THINK THE AUTHORITY FOR THAT IS THIS COURT'S OPINION IN LAKE WORTH P O WERS VERSUS GE FERN WIN , AND THIS -- VE RSUS GERSHWIN , AND IN THAT CASE THIS COURT FOUND THAT A PREVIOUS CHALLENG E TO AVOID ASSESSMENT CAN BE BROUGHT AFTER THE 60 -DAY TIME FR AME.

JUSTICE: NOW, ACTUALLY , THE QUESTI ON HERE I S NOT WHETHER THIS , AS JUSTICE CANTERO POINTED OUT , THEREIS A DIFFER ENCE FOR HISQUESTION, AND YOU AGREE, IS THERE A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN EXEMPTION AND IMMUNITY ? AND WE MADE THAT SPECIFIC POINT IN CANAVERAL PORT AUTHORITY. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE CANAVERAL PORT AUTHORITY CASE?

YE S, I AM , YOUR HONOR.

JUSTICE: WE MADE THAT SPECIFIC POINT THAT THERE ISA DIS TINCTION, AND, BUT , W E RELIED THERE O N DICKINSON , AND DID DIC KINSON RELY ON A STATUTORY BASIS FOR THE STATE BEING IMMUNE FROM TAXATION?

NO , YOUR HO NOR. DICKINSON , IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING, RELIED ON EITHER COMMON LAW OR CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS, ALTHOUGH THERE IS NO SPECIFIC, I THINK , PROVISION IN THE CONSTITUTION .

JUSTICE: THAT IS THE R ONY COME BACK TO MY QUE STION , IS , CAN THE LEGISLATURE, IF THIS COURT FOUNDED THE , IF IT HAS A CONSTITUTIONAL BASE, THEN THE LEGI SLATURE COULDN'T DO AWAY WITH THE STATE'S IMMUNITY .

YOUR HONOR , MY ONLY RESPONSE TO THAT CAN BE COURTS HAVE HELD THAT T HEY CAN, INCLU DING THIS COURT BELOW HELD THAT THEY COULD , AND THAT ISSUE HASN'T BEEN BRIEFED AWAY THAT THE STATE DOESN'T HAVE THE POWER TO WAIVE OR TO DO THIS IF IT DESIRES.THE RE IS NO ARGUMENT THAT HAS BEEN MADE THAT S AYS IF EVERYONE AGREED THE STATUTE DID THIS, THE LEGISLATURE , IT WOULD BE BE YOND THE LEGISLATURE'S POWER , SO THAT ISSUE IS NOT BEFORE THECOURT.

JUSTICE: I WANT YOU TO FINISH THE ANSWER.DID YOU FINISH THE ANSWER?

YES.

JUSTICE: IT SEEM S AS THOUGH THE PRIOR CASE S THAT WERE ALL TALKED ABOUT , INTERPRETED SOME QUESTION O F AMBIGUITY OR N EED TO CONSTRUE A STATUTE IN THIS AREA. NONE OF THOSE INVOLVED THE STATE , SO COULD YOU SHAREWITH US WHY YOU BELIEVE THAT THOSE CASES SH OULD BE EXTENDED TO THE STATE AS WELL. AND LE T'S NOT TALK A BOUT LESSEES OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. LET'S TALK ABOUT THE CAPITOLOVER HERE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT .

IN THIS CASE, YOUR HONOR, THIS COURT IN LAKE WORTH POWERS VERSUS GERSTEN SPECIFICALLY FOUND THAT. THIS COURT RULED THAT THEY DECIDED TO SET OUT DEADLINES THAT WERE APPROPRIATE FOR ABSOLUTE, FOR BR INGING A CTION TO SAY CHALLENGE ABSOLUTELY V OID TAX ASSESSMENTS AND IN THEIR WORDS ON PROPERTY THAT IS NOT TAXA BLE BECAUSE OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY OR EXEMPT STATUS, SO THIS COURT FOUND THAT IN LAKE WORTH POWERS VERSUS GERSTEN , AND THIS COURT FOUND THAT IF TAX CERTIFICATE OR TAX DEEDSWERE ISSUED THERE ON, SUIT TO CANCEL THE SAME M UST BE BROUGHT WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED BY S F -1 97 AND IF I CAN JUST POINT OUT THAT S F-1 9 7 IS TO TALLY GENERAL. IT DOESN'T SAY THE STATE MUST BRING AN ACTION WITH INA CERTAIN TIME. IT JUST SAYS PE OPLE IN GENERAL MUST BRIN G AN ACTION .

CHIEF JUSTICE: HO W DO YOU S QUARE 194.171.3 THAT SAYS BEFORE AN ACTION TO CON TEST A TAX ASSESSMENT MAY BE BROUGHT , THE TAXPAYER SH ALL P AY TO THE TAX COLLECTOR NOTLESS THAN THE AMOUNT OF THETAX , WHICH THE TAXPAYER ADMITS IS IN GOOD FAITH IS OWING. I F THEY ARE IMMUNE , THEN HOWCOULD THEY EVER , THE STATE, IF , AGAIN, IF WE ASSUME THIS STATUTORY SCHEME WAS INTEND TO APPLY TO THE STATE , HOW DOES THAT SECTION FIT IN?

I DON'T KNOW THAT THIS COURT HAS REACHED THE ISSUE, BUT THE L OWER APPELLATE COURTS HAVE DECIDED THAT, IF A TAXPAYER ASSERTS THAT HE DOES NOT OWE ANYTHING IN GOOD FAITH, HE IS FREE NOT TO POST ANY AMOUNT OF MONEYWITH THE REGISTRY OF THECOURT , AND IN MY OPINION, THAT STATUTE SPECIFICALLY ALLOWS FOR THE STATE. IF THE STATE IS SAYING IT IS IMMUNE, IT IS NOT REQUIRED TO PAY ANYTHING INTO THE REGISTRY OF THE COURT, JUST IF I WERE A PRIVATE ENTITY THAT HAD AN EXEMPTION FOR SOME REASON , I COULD GO TO COURT AND SAY I DON'T OWEANYTHING AND NOT PAYANYTHING. THE LOWER COURTS HAVE ALLOWED THAT. I DON'T KNOW --

JUSTICE: WHAT HAS THE CONSTITUTION, I T SAYS THERESHALL BE NO TAX PURSUANT TO LAW, SO AGREE THERE IS NO TAX.

I AGREE WE HAVEN'TREACHED THAT ISSUE YET. SUMMARY JU DGMENT WAS FILEDBEFORE THE AL PS WAS FILED , AND JUST LIKE IN ANY CASE IFYOU ARE OUT OF TIME TO BRING THE CHALLENG E, IT DOESN'T M ATTER ABOUT THE SUBSTANTIVE ISSUE, AND JUST AS I N LAKE WORTH, IT SA ID THAT IF THE TAX, EVEN IF YOU ALLEGE A TAX CERT IFICATE OR TAX DEED IS ABSOLU TELY VOID BECAUSE OF SO VEREIGN IMMUNITY, IF YOU DON'T BRING THE ACTION IN THE TIME PRESCRIBED BY GENERAL STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS , IT IS B A RRED.

JUSTICE: DO YOU THINKTHAT THAT IS A GOOD PUBLIC POLICY, THAT EVEN IF THE STATE IS NOT SUB JECT TO TAXATION , THAT BECAUSE THEY DID NOT FILE SOME KIND OF ACTION IN 60 DAYS , THAT THEY NOW ARE SUBJECT TO THOSE TAXES?

I THINK IT IS A VERY GOOD PUBLIC PO LICY , TWO VERY IMPORTANT BRIEFS. NUMBER ONE, THE PUBLIC POLICY EXPRESSED WHEN THECOURT , WHEN THE LEGISLATURE ENACTED 95.011, AND THAT STATUTE, THE LEGISLATURE MADE THE STATE SUBJECT , GENERAL STATUTES OF LIMITATION, PRESUMABLY THE SAME ARGUMENTS THAT WERE BROUGHT HERE WERE BROUGHT AT THAT TIME. IF THE STATE HAS LEGI TIMATE CAUSES OF ACTION, THE LEGITIMATE CAUSE OF ACTION MAY BE BARRE D BY THESTATUTES OF LI MITATION , BUTTHE ARGUMENT FOR SUCH STATUTE IS SIMPLE FAIRNESS. WHATEVER IS GOOD FOR THEPRIVATE ENTITY --

JUSTICE: IS THAT BRINGING A CAUSE OF ACTION OR YOU ARE TALKING STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS?

IN 95 .011 IT DOESN'T SAY STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. IT SAYS STATUTORY TIME LIMIT .

CHIEF JUSTICE: SO I GUESSWE ARE DOWN TO THIS BOTTOM LINE, WHICH IS THAT YOU ASSERT THAT THE LEGISLAT URE COULD WA IVE IMMUNITY , BUT IT WOULD HAVE TO B E EXPRESS , AND IS IT EXPRESS IN THIS STATUTE THAT THAT WAS INTENDED TO APPLY TO THESTATE? THAT IS WHERE WE ARE BACK AROUND TO , TO PUT, IF THAT IS TRUE, WOULD YOU AGREETHAT IF THERE IS ANY AMBIGUITY ABOUT IT , W E OUGHT TO E ARN THE SIDE -- WE OUGHT TO E RR ON THE SIDE OF AFFIRMING THE STATE'S IMMUNITY FROM TAXA TION.

WE DON'T FEEL THERE IS ANY AM BIGUITY HERE, YOUR H ONOR .

CHIEF JUSTICE: WE FIND IF THERE IS ANY QUESTION , WE E RR ON THE SIDE OF THE LEGISLATURE DID NOT EXPRESSLY INTEND THIS TO APPLY TO THE STATE.

IF THERE ARE TWO POSITIONS OF E QUAL V ALUE AND YOU CANNO T DECIDE BETWEEN THEM, THEN, YES , I THINK THAT MIGHT BE THE WAY TO GO. THERE IS NO AMB IGUITY HERE EVEN ALLE GED THAT WOULD CREATE THAT, BECAUSE THE STATUTES ARE CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS, AND BECAUSE, YOUR HONOR, AT THE TIME THIS 194.171 WAS MADE A STATUTE OF NON-CL AIM , AT THAT TIME 95.011 WAS LIMITED SAYING GENERAL STATUTE , LIMITING TIME TO BRING SUIT AND LAKE WORTH HAD EXISTED FOR 12 Y EARS THAT SAI D THE STATE WOULD LOSE PROP ERTY IF IT DID NOT BRING ACTIONS TO CONTEST CERTIFIC ATES AND DEEDS WITHIN THE RIGHT TIME FRAME. THE LEGISLATURE PRESUMABLY HAS TO BE A WARE O F BOTH AUTHORITIES, AT THE TIME THAT IT MA KES THE STATUTE A NON-CLAIM STATUTE, SO WHA T WE ARE SAYING IS IF YOU PRESUME A LEGISLATOR WAS LOOKING AT THOSE TWO AUTHORITIES AT THE TIME HEVOTED FOR THAT STATUTE THERE , IS NO WAY THAT HE COULD POSITION THAT HE WASN'T BINDING THE STATE. IT'S NOT POSSIBLE.

JUSTICE: WERE THE TAX CERTIFICATES CANC ELLED I N THIS CASE?

NO , YOUR HONOR. THE TAX CERTIFICATES ARE KIND OF IN LIMBO RIGHT NOWBECAUSE THERE WAS AN ACTION TO ENJ OY THE ISSU ANCE OF -- ENJOIN THE ISSUANCE OF A TAX DEED. THAT INJU NCTION WAS ISSUED , REVERSED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT AND THE D CA'S MA NDATE REINSTATE SO D WE ARE KIND OF IN LIMBO AT THAT POINT . THE OTHER ARGUMENT ON PUBLIC POLICY THAT JUSTICE QU INCE R AISED IS THERE IS A TREMENDOUS PUBLIC POLICY ISSUE HERE AS R AISED IN LAKE WORTH VERSUS GERSTEN , AND I N THAT THE COURT SAID THE POLICY INVOLVED IN SUCH LIMITING , THE POLICY INVOLVED IN SUCH LACHES,THERE MUST BE A TIME WHEN SUCH PROCEDURES MUST B E COMPLETED , S HOULD NOT BE JUDICIAL LY CONCERNED . INTERVENING RIGHTS HAVE ACCRUED. WHAT HAPPENS IN THESE CASESIS IF THEY PREV AIL , LOCALGOVERNMENTS HAVE TO PAY BACK THIS M ONEY AT 8 PERCENT S IMPLE INTEREST AND IF THAT HAPPENS WE HAVE TO SHIFT THE BURDEN FROM THE STATE NOT MANAGING ITS PROPERTY PROPERLY FROM THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE LOCALGOVERNMENT HAS TO R E FUND M ONEY IT HAS EXPENDED A N NEX PENNED IT PROPERLY BECAUSEIT IS RELYING ON A 60-DAY STATUTE OF NON-CLAIM THAT SHOULD HAVE PROTECTED IT.

CHIEF JUSTICE: IF YOUWANT TO SAVE THE REST OF YOUR TIME FOR REBUTTAL.

YES, YOUR HONOR.

CHIEF JUSTICE: THA NK YOU. MR. HUBEN ER.

MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT. LOUIS HUBE NER WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERALS OFFICE ON BEHALF O F THE DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES. THE CERTIFIED QUESTION I S NARROW, IT ASSUMES THAT PROPERTY IS OW NED BY THE STATE AND IS IMMUNE FROM TAXATION , AND IT SHOULD BE ANSWERED IN THE NEGATIVE FOR TWO REAS ONS . F IRST IS THAT SECTION 194.171 CONTAINS NO C LEAR AND UNMISTAKABLE STATEMENT B Y THE LEGISLATURE THAT IT IS INTENDED TO APPLY TO THE STATE. AND THIS COURT HAS REPEATEDLY SAID THAT THAT IS ESSENTIAL TO ANY WAIVER OF THE STATE'S IMMUNITY OR TAX IMMUNITY.

JUSTICE: YOU SAY THE ISSUE IS VERY N ARROW , BUT WE ARE ALL AW ARE OF FACT THAT WE HAVE SORT OF A BROADER POLICY ABOUT THAT ALL PROPERTY IS TAXABLE , AND OVER THE YE ARS WE HAVE DEVELOPED THIS CONCEPT OF, IF THE PROPERTY IS LE ASED , FOR INSTANCE, TO PR IVATE ENTITIES , THAT THAT PROPERTY BECOMES TAXABLE. IS THAT CORRECT?

WELL , THAT IS TRU E BUT THAT IS BY STATUTE. THERE IS A STATUTE THAT SPECIFICALLY WAIVES IMMUNITY.

JUSTICE: THE DIFFICULTY THAT I YOU MEAN HAVING HERE WITH A S I MPLE AN SWER TO THIS QUESTION IS A S PROPERTY TAKES ON DIFFERENT FORM IN TERMS O F BEING TAXABLE AND NONTAXABLE, AS IT MA Y GO FROM STATE OWNERSHIP TO PRIVATE LEASEHOLDS , HOW ARE WE TO D RAW THE LINES IN HERE , AND FOR INSTANCE LE T'S SAY AS A HYPOTHETICAL THAT W E HAVE STATE PROPERTY LEASED TO A PRIVATE ENTITY AND THE PRIVATE ENTITY FA LLS INTO A DEFAULT WITH PAYMENT OF TAXES AND WE HAVE THE SAME SORT OF THING OCCUR. DOES THE STATE HAVE A RIGHT, THEN, TO COME I N AND SAYWAIT A MINUTE.NO. ALTHOUGH WE HAVE LEASED THIS OUT ON A 99-YEAR LEASE , THAT THERE REALLY CAN'T BE AN IMPPOSITION OF L I ENS OR FORECLOSURE OF THOSE LIENS ON STATE PROPERTY. WORK ME THROUGH THAT HYPOTHETICAL.

WELL , THE LEGISLATURE HAS DONE ALL MY WORK FOR ME. THEY HAVE SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSED THAT IN TWOSTATUTES, 197.432 PAREN 9 AND 196.199 PAREN 8 , AND THOSE STA Y SAY THAT , WITH RESPECT TO LEASE -- THOSESAY THAT, WITH RESPECT TO LEASEHOLDS OF GOVERNMENT PROPERTY THAT , NO TAX CERTIFICATE CAN BE SOLD ON THOSE PROPERTIES AND ANY TAXES DUE , D O NOT BECOME ALIEN BUT CONSTITUTE A DE BT ANIMUS B E COLLECTED THROUGH OTHER LEGAL PROC ESSES .

CHIEF JUSTICE: FOLLOWING UP ON JUSTICE ANS TEAD 'S QUESTION, BECAUSE HERE AS YOU SAID , IT HAS NOT BE EN A DETERMINATION YE T AS TO WHETHER THIS PROPERTY I S IN FACT IMMUNE .

UM-HUM.

CHIEF JUSTICE: SO WHATYOU HAVE FOR THE COU NTY THAT HAS THIS SORT OF HY BRID T YPE OF PROPERTY , IS THAT INSTEAD OF SOME KIND O F MEAD NOTICE THAT THIS I S , CAN GO ON HOW LONG? IN OTHER WORDS THE STATE SCENARIO, THE STATE WOULD HAVE HOW LONG TO CONT EST THE ASSESSMENT?

I DO N'T THINK THAT THERE IS ANY TIME LIMIT ON THAT, BECAUSE --

CHIEF JUSTICE: WOULDN'T THE TIME LIMIT BE AT LEAST THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS TIME LIMIT?

BUT I DON'T THINK THERE IS A STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS THAT EXPRESSLY APPL IES TO THE SITUATION.

CHIEF JUSTICE: SO WHAT ABOUT THE SITUATION, AG AIN, THE COMPETING POLICY BETWEEN SAYING IT IS REASO NABLE, MAYBE 60 DAYS MIGHT BE TOOSHORT FOR THE STATE TO GET A PROPERTY OWNER THROUGHOUT THE STATE , BUT CAN THEY COME IN FIVE YEARS FROM NOW AND SAY THIS WASN'T --

THERE IS N O IMPEDIMENT TO THAT.

CHIEF JUSTICE: BUT DON'TYOU SE E THAT AS PROBLEM?

IT I S ONE THAT, IF IT IS A PROBLEM , THAT THE LEGISLATURE SHOULD TAKE NOTICE OF AND A DDRESS , BUTAT THIS POINT , AT THE TIME THERE IS NO STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ON THAT , AND FRANKLY , IF THE PROPERTY IS IMMUNE, THEN THERE IS NO MONEY DUE , SO THE TAX AUTHORITY IS NOT LO SING ANYTHING.

JUSTICE: YOUR OPPONENT MENTIONED ABOUT THE COUNTY COURT BEING , I ASSUME THAT SOME NOTICE IS SENT TO THE COUNTY, BUT IN THIS CASE WAS THE STATE EVER NOTIFIED? W AS THERE ANY EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD T HAT THE STATE WAS ON NOTICE AS BEING ASSESSED?

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD ON THAT POINT .

JUSTICE: SO THE NOTICE WAS JUST THROUGH THE PRIVATE ENTITY THAT WAS RUNNING THE CAMP?

LET ME CLEAR U P A MISCONCEPTION . THE CORRECTION OF PRIVATIZATION CREATURE IS IN STATUTE AND WITHIN THEDEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES. IT C REATED THE FLORIDA DIRECTIONAL FI NANCE CORPORATION , WHI CH WAS THE NONPROFIT COR PORATION , WHOSE MEMBERS CONSISTTED OF THE DIRECTOR O F THE CORR ECTION PRIVATIZATION COMMISSION. ANOTHER MEMB ER OF THAT COMMISSION, AND THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THECOMMISSION, SO IT WAS A STATE INSTRUMENTALITY THAT HELD THE TITLE TO IT . THERE HAS N EVER BEEN ANY QUESTION ABOUT THAT , BUT SOMEHOW , AND IT IS NOT CLE AROF RECO RD, THE PROPERTY APPRAISER GOT THE IMP RESSION THAT IT WAS A PRIVATE ENTITY OR THAT SOMEHOW THE PROPERTY WAS SUBJECT TO TAXATION .

JUSTICE: BO TTOM LINE HERE , THIS ISN'T A CASE WH ERE THE STATE WAS G IVEN NOTICE A FTER ASSESSMENT AND DI DN'T O BJECT TO IT.

I CANNOT SAY THAT IT WAS.

JUSTICE: WHAT?

I CANNOT SAY THAT. WE DON'T KNOW.

JUSTICE: WE DON'T K N OW.

CHIEF JUSTICE: JUSTICE CANTERO .

JUSTICE: ISN'T THEPURPOSE OF SECTION 194.171 WHICH PROVIDES A 60-DAY LIMIT TO ALLOW THE ASSESSMENT ENTITY, COUNTY , MUNICIPALITY, TO HAVE SOME KIND OF CERTAINTY ABO UT THE TAXES THAT IT IS GOING TO BE ABLE TO COLLECT IN ORDER TO BUDGET ITS AFFAIRS FOR THE UPCOMING YEAR ?

THAT IS TR UE TO A POINT , BUT , A GAIN , IF THE STATE IS IMMUNE , THAT IS REALLY --

JUSTICE: I AM AS KING IS THAT THE PURPOSE RIGHT NOW. ISN'T THAT THE PURPOSE?

YOU HAVE SAID INWARD VERSUS BROWNLESS THAN TWO YEARS AGO , THAT THE PURPOSEOF THE STATUTE IS TO E N SURE THAT TAXES OWED ARE PROMPTLY P AID , AND UNDISPUTED REVENUES ARE AVAILABLE TO THE TAXING AUTHOR ITY. SO THAT IS --

JUSTICE: ISN'T AN OTHER PURPOSE AND WHY WE HAVE A 60-DAY LIMIT IS SO THAT ASS ISTING -- ASS ESSING ENTITY KNOWS THIS IS THE AMOUNT THAT IS GOING TO COME IN SO NOW WE CAN B U DGET OUR UPCOMING YEAR, SO IF IT ASSESSEST AMOUNT FOR THESTATE AND IT ASSUMES BECAUSETHE STATE HAS NOT FILED SOMETHING WITHIN 6 0 DAYS,THAT IT IS GOING TO BE COLLECTING THOSE TAXES AND BUDGETS ITSELF FOR THE UPCOMING YEAR, BASED ON THAT ASSESSMENT. DOESN'T IT VIOLATE THE PURPOSE OF THE STATUTE TO ALLOW THE STATE TO COME IN TEN YEARS LATER , ACCORDING TO YOU AND SAY , O H, NO BY THE WAY , WE DON'T OWE TAX OWES THAT AND WE ARE IMMUNE AND SO TOUGH .

IF THE LEGISLATURE HAD MADE THAT A PART OF THESTATUTE , I WOULD AGREE WITH YOU BUT IT DID NOT

JUSTICE: ISN'T THAT WHAT IT DID IN 95.0111 , WHICHSAYS THAT IT SHALL BE BA RRED IF PRESCRIBED WITHIN THE TIME IN THIS CHAPTER OR IF PRESCRIBED ELSEWHERE WITHIN THE TIME LIMITS PRES CRIBED ELSEWHERE .

THAT IS A PROCEDURAL STATUTE THAT DOES NOT WAIVE ANY SUBSTANTIVE RIGHT OF THE STATE.IT DOES NOT WAIVE THE STATE'S TAX IMMUNITY. AND --

JUSTICE: LET'S SAY IF THE STATE IS IMMUNE FROM SUIT FOR PERSONAL INJURY , AND THE STATE DOESN'T DO ANY THING WITHIN THE TIME OF THESTATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, THEN THAT RIGHT, TOO, IS GONE. IT IS WAI VED. SO IT SEEMS LIKE 95.011 SEEMS TO HOLD THE STATE TO THE STATUTE OF LIMITATI ONS , EVEN WHERE IT HAS A SUBSTANTIVE RIGHT.

ONLY WHERE IT HAS FROM OBLIGATION UNDER STATUTE TO DO SOME THING. THEN IT M UST DO IT WITHIN THE TIME THAT OTHER LITIGANTS MUST DO IT , BUT I T HAS, IT DID NOT ANSWER THE QUESTION OF WHETHER 194 .171 APPLIES PER SE .

JUSTICE: I AM NOT SURE THAT WE HAVE REALLY ANSWERED THE QUESTION THAT JUSTICE ANSTEAD HAS POSED , BECAUSETHE GOVERNMENT CAN EN GAGE IN ALL SORTS OF ARRANGEMENTS WITH OTHER FOLKS, AND YOU COULD ALWAYS MAKE ARGU MENTS AS TO , W ELL , THE STATE IS REALLY THE OWNE R AND THEREFORE IT IS IMMUNE AND THIS IS NOT REALLY A LEASE THIS. IS JUST SOME OTHER KIND OF A ARRANGEMENT, SO WOULDN'T IT THROW ALL OF THOSE INTO A , JUST AN OPEN EN DED SITUATIONWITH RE GARD T O A CHALLENGING TAXES OR I AM NOT SURE IUNDERSTAND YOUR POSITIONWITH REGARD TO HOW YOUR POSITION WOULD OPERATE IN ALL OF THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES , WHEN CLEARLY THERE ARE CASES WHERE THAT PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO TAX PROPER LY.

WELL , I SUPPOSE THAT IS WHY WE HAVE THE PREDATORY -- DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACT. IF THERE IS SOME DI SPUTE ANDTHE PROPERTY APPRAISER OR TAXING AUTHORITY THINKS THAT STATE PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO TAXATION OR PRO PERTY THAT IS CLAIMED TO BE STATE PROPERTY IS SUBJ ECT TO TAXATION , THEY CAN RESOLVE IT THAT WAY, BUT THE LEGISLATURE HASN'T C REATED A MECHANISM FOR THAT , AND IT CLEARLY DID NOT DO SO IN 194.171. THE STATE DOES NOT EVEN MENTION IN THAT STATUTE , FURTHERMORE --

CHIEF JUSTICE: DID YOU FINISH ANSWERING JUSTICE LEWIS'S QUESTION?

I WOULD JUST LIKE TOPOINT OUT ONE THING WITH RESPECT TO CHAPTER 194 , AND THAT IS THAT THE VERY FI RS T SECTION , 194.011, SAYS THAT , AND THIS IS THE CHAPTER WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, E ACH TAXPAYER WHOSE PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO AD VALOREM TAXESSHRX BE NOTI FIED THE ASSESSMENT OF EACH ACTI ON. IN THIS CASE THE TAXPAYER I S SOMEONE WHO IS SUBJECT TO AD VALOREM TAXES. THAT IS NOT THE STATE.

JUSTICE: BUT IN THIS CASE , THE PROPERTY APPR AISER MA DETHE DETERMINATION THAT THIS PROPERTY WAS SUBJECT TO AD VALOREM TAXES , AND SO WE WOULD ASSUME THAT THE PROPERTY APPRAISER SENT SOME KIND OF NOTICE TO SOMEONE . SHOULDN'T IT BE INCUMBENT UPON THE PE RSON OR ENTITY THAT RECEIVES THIS TAX NOTICE, WHETHER THEY BE LIEVE THAT THEY ARE SUBJECT TO THE TAXES OR NOT , TO HAVE TO DO SOMETHING ? IF THE STATE OR WHAT EVER CORPORATION YOU SAY WAS FORMED TO ADMINISTER THIS PROPERTY, RECE IVED THE NOTICE, ISN'T IT THEN INCUMBENT UPON THEM TO DO SOMETHING ?

WE DON'T KNOW EXACTLYWHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE .

JUSTICE: LET'S JUST ASS UME FOR THE SAKE OF THIS ARGUMENT THAT A NOTICE OF AD VALOREM TAXES WAS RECEIVED O N THIS PROPERTY. THEN SHOULDN'T THEY HAVE TO DO SOMETHING FROM THERE?

THAT WOULD BE THE WISE THING TO DO. BUT THE PROB LEM YOU ARE REALLY ADDRESSING HERE IS THAT THESE NOTICE ES COME INTO THE STATE AND IN VARIOUS WAY S . SOMETIMES THEY DON'T COME DIRECTLY. SOMETIMES THEY DON'T COME AT ALL, SO THAT THE TIME GOES BY , UNDER NON-CLAIM STATUTE , AND THE STATE DOESN'T EVEN KNOW ABOUT WHAT , ABOUT THE ASSESSMENT. SO IT WOULD CERT AINLY BE ADVISABLE FOR THE STATE TO TAKE SOME ACTION , BUT IT IS REALLY NOT SET UP TO DO THAT. I MEAN , THE STATE OWNS 6 MILLION ACRES OF UPLANDS AND INTERNAL DeLAND.

JUSTICE: IF I WERE TO OWE TAXES, THE SAME THING WOULD HAPPEN TO ME. IS THAT COR RECT?

THAT IS BECAUSE AS AN INDIVIDUAL, YOU KNOW IF YOU OWN REAL PROPERTY, THAT THAT PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO TAXATION. THE STATE DOESN'T KNOW THAT, BECAUSE IT IS NOT SUBJECT TO TAXATION .

LET'S GO THROUGH THIS. I WANT TO UNDE RSTAND HOW 197.432-9 WORKS WHERE YOUHAVE GOT THR EE POSSIBLE SITUATIONS WITH PROPERTY. YOU E ITHER , IT IS NOT UP FOR DISCUSSION. IS PROPERTY OWNED BY THE STATE FOR A GOVERNMENTAL PURPOSE AND PROPERTY O WNED BY THE STATE LEASED TO A NONGOVERNMENTAL AGEN CY OR IT IS PRI VATE PROPERTY . IN THE SITUATION WHERE IT IS PRIVATE PROPERTY , AND THE TAXES AREN'T PAID , THE , AND THE TAXPAYER DOES NOT TIMELY GET INVOLVED IN CONTESTING IT , THAT PROPERTY CAN BE SOLD , CORRECT?

CORRECT .

CHIEF JUSTICE: NOW, IN ASITUATION WHERE THE PROPERTY IS OWNED BY THE STATE BUT LEASED TO A NONGOVERNMENTAL AGENCY, THAT PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO AD VA LOREM TAXATION, CORREC T?

CORRECT . THE LEASEHOLD --

JUSTICE: UNDER WILLIAMS , THE WILLIAMS LI NE OF CASES OUT OF WEST FLORIDA , CORRECT ?

CHIEF JUSTICE: WHAT YOUARE SAYING IN THAT SITU ATION, THE PROPERTY CANNOT BE SOLD , BUT IF THE DEFENSE IS NOT RAISED WITHIN THE TIME PERIOD , THEN IN FACT HOW IS THE COURT OR THE TAXING ENTITY TO KNOW THAT STATUS , AND THAT IS WHY IT SORT OF BRINGS ME BACK TO WHAT J USTICE ANS TEAD ASKEDINITIALLY, IS HOW CAN SOMEONE EVEN TAKE ADVANTAGE OF 197.432-9 , IF NOBODY HAS MADE THE ASSERTION THAT IT IS PROPERTY THAT IS OWNED BY THE STATE?

WELL , THEY SHOULD KNOW THAT IT IS LEASED PROPERTY. I MEAN , THAT WOULD BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PROPERTY APPRAISER TO KNOW THAT .

CHIEF JUSTICE: BUT IN THIS SITUATION YOU ARESAYING IT IS NOT THAT IT WAS LEASED PROPERTY.IT IS ACTUALLY IT WAS AL WAYS OWNED AND ALWAYS OPERATED BY A GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY? THAT IS THE CONTENTION?

RIGHT. THERE WAS A LEASE INVOLVED.I DON'T KNOW WHAT CAUSED THE CONFUSION IN THIS CASE . THE PROPERTY APPRAISER.

CHIEF JUSTICE: YOU SEEWHAT I AM ASKING ABOUT IS YOU ARE SAYING THE PROPERTY APPRAISER OR THE TAX COLLECTOR, WHATEVER ENTITY IS INVOLVED AT THE PARTICULAR TIME, SHOULD KNOW THIS, BUT THE I DEA O F 197 IS FOR EVERYTHING TO BE , ALL THE CARDS ON THE TABLE WITHIN A SHORT TIME NOT TOBE ABLE TO COME IN YEARS L ATER AND SAY YOU MISTAKENLY SOLD THIS PROPERTY , BECAUSE THIS WAS PROPERTY THAT WAS LEASED T O A NONGOVERNM ENTAL AGENCY, BUT IT WAS ALWAYS GOVERNMENTAL PROPERTY. I MEAN, STATE PROPERTY .

WELL , OBVIOUSLY THERE IS A CERTAIN APPEAL TO THAT BUT THE PROBLEM IS THAT IT IS SOMETHING THAT IS WITHIN THE AUTHORITY OF THE LEGISLATURE TO DEAL WITH , IT HAS NOT STRUCTURED THE LAWS IN THAT FASHION.

CHIEF JUSTICE: IS THIS THE FIRST TIME THIS HAS COME UP? THERE ARE NO OTHER CASES ON THIS --

I KNOW THAT THERE ARE OTHER CASES IN LITIGATION WHERE PROPERTY APPRAI SERS HAVE MISUNDERSTOOD , PERHAPS , THAT LEASES OF SUBMERGED LAND FOR LEASES HAVE VIEWED THE SUBM ERGED LAND AS PART OF THE UP LANDS , NOT REALIZING IT WAS SOLVE RINT LAND AND THERE ARE -- SOVEREIGNTY LAND , AND THERE ARE CASES ON THAT RIGHT NOW , AND THAT IS HOW I WOULD ADDRESS THE TRILOGY I -- TRILOGY OF CASES THAT IS RELIED ON , NEPTUNE VER SUS BROWN , WARD , NOT A SI NGLE ONE OF THEM ADDRESS ED STATEPROPERTY OR PROPERTY THAT WAS IMMUNE FROM TAXA TION, SO THE , ALL THE LINE OF REASONING IN THOSE CASES SIMPLY HAS NOT BEEN APP LIEDTO THE STATE . THE REFERENCE IN LAKE WORTH TOWERS TO IMMUNE PROPERTY OF THE STATE AND IN WH ICH THETAX CERTIFICATE WAS IS SUED WAS --

CHIEF JUSTICE: I AM ST ILL STRUGGLING WITH YOU SAYING THERE WAS AN OPEN EN DE D TIME PERIOD TO CHALLENGE IT , BECAUSE , AGAIN , IS , WHAT IF THE PROPERTY WAS ALREADY SOLD? WOULD KOO THEY COME IN AND SAY IT -- COULD THEY COME IN AND SAY IT WAS I M PROPERLY SOLD? DON'T WE HAVE SOME ISSUES OF CLEAR TITLE, SO THAT THE LEGISLATURE AT LEAST WOULD INTEND SOME TIME PERIOD TO BE APPLIC ABLE TO THE , SOMEONE MA KING A CLAIM THAT THIS IS IMMUNE FROM TAXATION .

WELL , A GAIN THE LEGISLATURE JUST HAS TO THE DONE THAT , AND I THINK - - CHIEF IT WOULD BE, NO , THEYDID IT. THEY DID IT IN 197.

WELL , BUT TO THE EX TENT THAT TAX EA RTH TICKETS ARE ISSUED -- TAX CERTIFICATES ARE ISSU ED OR TAX DE EDS ARE ISSUED , I THINK THAT PRESENTS A CLEAR OPPORTUNITYFOR THE STATE TO TAKE ACTION WHICH IT DID HERE.

JUSTICE: I GUESS IT REALLY FO CUSES IF THERE IS NOT A STATUTORY BA SIS , CAN T WL BE A -- CAN THERE BE AN ESTOPPEL OR LA CHES APPLIEDTO THE STATE IN THESITUATION BETWEEN THE COUN TYAND THE STATE?

I ACKNOWLEDGED THAT LACHES IS A POSSIBILITY IN EVERY ESTOPPEL CASE, I GUESS , IS DIFFERENT AND HAS TO BE DECIDED UP ON THE F A CTS, AND THERE IS NO CL AIM IN THIS CASE THAT THE STATE SHOULD BE ESTO PPED . THE TO TAL RE LIANCE IS ON THE NON-CLAIM STATUTE , AND THIS COURT HAS SAID IN AT LEAST ONE CASE , BASS VERSUS PRESTIGE, THAT SOMEBODY WHO HAD ACQUIRED STATE PROPERTY THROUGH A MURPHY ACT DEED AND OCCUPIED IT FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TIME AND BUILT IMPROVEMENTS AND PAY TAXESON IT, THEN THE STATE WAS ES -- WAS ESTOPPED TO MAKE A CLAIM ON IT , SO THERE IS APOSSIBILITY OF ESTOPPEL ON ACASE-BY-CASE BASIS, BUTOTHERWISE THERE IS NO LIMITATION THAT APPLIE S TO THE STATE . ONE FINAL WORD , THE LAKE WORTH TO WERS , I THINK I SAID THE STATE WAS D I CTA , INSOFAR AS IT SUGGESTED THAT THE STATE SHOULD PROCEED TO HAVE A TAX DEED CANCELLED UNDER 197. THERE WAS A STATUTE IN EXISTENCE IN 197 AT THAT TIME THAT G AVE THE STATE FOUR YEARS FR OM THE TIME THE TAX DEED WAS ISSUED, AND THAT STATUTE SURVIVED IN CHAPTER 95 NOW , AND WE HAVE BROUGHT THIS ACTION EVEN BEFORE THE TAX DEED WAS ISSUED, SO EVEN BY THE COURT 'S L OGIC IN LAKE WORTH TOW ERS, THIS ACTION WAS TIMELY.

CHIEF JUSTICE: THA NK YOU. REBUTTAL ?

CONCERNING THE ISSUE OF NOTES, IN THIS ACTION THE STATE BROUGHT AN ACTION IN CIRCUIT COURT TO ENJOIN THE ISSUANCE OF A TAX DEED. THE BASIS SET O UT IN THAT COMPLAINT WAS THAT THE STATEOWNED THE PROPERTY. THERE WAS NE VER AN ISSUE A BOUT NOTICE DURX PROCESS OR ANYTHING SIMILAR. THAT HAS BEEN TOTALLY WAIVED. IT IS NOT AT ISSUE IN THE STATE .

JUSTICE: LET ME COME BACK TO THE HAUNT THAT I HAVE IN THIS CASE AND THAT IS THAT JUDGE I RVIN IN THE FIRST DISTRICT'S OP INION C ITES TO DICKINSON AND CITES TO THE ADOPTION BY THIS COURT OF ORLANDO UTILITIES VERSUS MILLIGAN IN WHICH THIS COURT SAID THE STATE IN ITS POLITICAL SUBDIVISION LI KE A COUNTY , ARE IMMUNE FROM TAXATION, SINCE THERE IS NO POWER TO TAX THEM . CITING TO AL FRED, WHICH SAYS THAT, RE ALLY, WHAT WE ARE DEALING WITH IS A SEPARATION OF POWERS ISSUE BASICALLY, IN THAT YOU COULDN'T GIVE THE LEGISLATURE THE POWER T O TAX THE GOVE RNOR 'S BUILDING , WITHOUT RUNNING INTO A PRO BLEM OF SEPARATION OF POWERS. AND SO HAVE WE IN ANY CASE THAT YOU HAVE FO UND , RETREATED FROM DIC KINSON OR RET REATED FROM THOSE CASES OR PORT CANAVERAL?

I HAVE NOT FOUND A CASE WHERE YOU HAVE RETREATED FROM THE HO LDING IN DIC KINSON. HOW EVER, I WOULD AS SERT THE DICKINSON CASE STANDS FOR THE PROPOS ITION OF SUBSTANTIVE LAW THAT YOU CANNOT TAX THEM , THESE ENTITIES SUBSTANTIVELY. THE CASES THAT DEAL WITH THE PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS,WHETHER OR NOT THE STATE CANLOSE ITS PROPERTY IF IT FAILS TO FO LLOW THE CORRECT PROCEDURE, HAVE ALSO NEVER BEEN RETREATED FROM. THE LAKE WORTH CASES VERSUS G ERSTEN SPECIFICALLY HOLDSTHAT. TRUSTEES VERSUS BASS SPECIFICALLY HOLDS THAT PROPERTY OF THE TRUSTEES,WHICH WOULD BE IMMUNE PROPERTY UNDER THE CASES THAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT, THAT THAT PROPERTY IS L OST BECAUSE THE STATE FA ILED TO BRING ITS ACTION TIMELY. THERE THEY USED THE DOCTRINE LESS EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL , BUT THE POINT IS THE SA ME. IF IT IS IMMUNE , EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL WOULD APPLY NO MORE THAN THIS STATUTE, THE NON-CLAIM STATUTE THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. HOW CAN EQUITABLE STATUTE BE PROPER AND THE NON-CLAIM STATUTE NOT BE PROPER? WHEN THE STATE CONC EDES THAT LACHES COULD APPLY OR ESTOPPEL COULD APPLY , THEY CONCEDE EVERYTHING, BECAUSE IF THEY CONCEDE EVERYTHING , THEN THE STATE PROPERTY DOES NOT PASS OUTSIDE THE TAXSCHEME ALL TOGETHER. IT DOESN'T DO THAT LIKE IN THE CALIFORNIA CASE. THEY CIT ED TO THE COURTWHERE THIS HAPPENED. IT IS A CALIFORNIA CASE AND THERE THEY HAD GOTTEN AN ACTUAL JU DGMENT THAT SWITCHED TI TLE FROM ONEENT AT THIS TIME TO THE OTHER. THE JUDGMENT HAD -- FROM ONE ENTITY TO A THE OTHER, AND IT HAD SWITCHED FROM ONE ENTITY TO A NOTHER AND THEY SAID, NO, WHAT EVER HAPPENS IF IT FLOWS OUTSIDE OF THE TAX SCHEM E, THE STATE CANALWAYS GET IT BAC K. THAT HAS NOT HAPPENED IN THESTATE OF FLORIDA. PARTICULARLY THE STATE HAS ESTOPPEL IN BASS AND IF IT DOESN'T CHALLENGE TAX CERTIFICATE AND DEEDS IN GENERAL, I T SAYS GE NERALLY PEOPLE MUST