Provident Group-Continuum Properties, L.L.C. Ex Rel. University of Florida v. Crapo , 157 So. 3d 409 ( 2015 )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA
PROVIDENT GROUP- NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
CONTINUUM PROPERTIES, FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
L.L.C., A FLORIDA NOT FOR DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
PROFIT LIMITED LIABILITY
COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE FOR CASE NO. 1D14-2655
THE USE AND BENEFIT OF
THE UNIVERSITY OF
FLORIDA,
Appellant,
v.
ED CRAPO, IN HIS CAPACITY
AS ALACHUA COUNTY
PROPERTY APPRAISER, AND
VON FRASER IN HIS
CAPACITY AS ALACHUA
COUNTY TAX COLLECTOR,
Appellee.
_____________________________/
Opinion filed February 3, 2015.
An appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua County.
Victor Lawson Hulslander, Judge.
David K. Miller, of Broad and Cassel, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
John C. Dent, Jr., and Jennifer A. McClain, of Dent & McClain, Chartered,
Sarasota, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Provident Group-Continuum Properties, L.L.C., appeals an order
dismissing its declaratory action against appellees, Ed Crapo, Alachua County
Property Appraiser, and Von Fraser, Alachua County Tax Collector, seeking to
establish immunity from liability for ad valorem taxes assessed for 2010, 2011,
2012, 2013, and 2014, on a Gainesville property that appellant owns and operates
as graduate student apartments for the University of Florida. We reverse and
remand for further proceedings.
Appellees filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction
under section 194.171(2), Florida Statutes (2013), a statute of non-claim that
requires actions to challenge tax assessments to be filed within 60 days from
certification. The statute provides that its requirements are jurisdictional, barring
any action filed beyond the deadline. Appellant contended that its otherwise
untimely complaint was not time-barred, because appellant holds the property as
trustee of an express trust for the use and benefit of the University of Florida, and
Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.210(a) permits the trustee of an express trust to
prosecute an action for the real party in interest. The University, the real party in
interest, is a subdivision of the state and thus is exempt from the 60-day time limit
as stated in Cason v. Department of Management Services, 944 So. 2d 306 (Fla.
2006) (the 60-day jurisdictional time limit in section 194.171(2) does not apply to
2
a challenge by the state or its political subdivisions that a tax assessment is void,
because the state is not a “taxpayer” under the statute).
The circuit court dismissed appellant’s action with prejudice for lack of
jurisdiction. The only mention of a trust in the Operating Agreement provides: “All
property of the Company will be imposed with a charitable trust in furtherance of
these charitable purposes.” The court observed that this provision does not state
that the property is held in trust, only that it will be imposed with a trust, citing
Brevard County v. Ramsey, 658 So. 2d 1190 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). In that case, the
court found a valid trust based upon the owners’ written declaration that they held
the property as trustees for the use and benefit of the beneficiary. The court
concluded that the documents in the case did not establish that appellant is the
trustee of an express trust.
This court reviews de novo whether the lower court had subject matter
jurisdiction. See Washington County v. Northwest Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist., 85 So.
3d 1127 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). A trust is a property interest held by the trustee at
the request of the settlor for the benefit of the beneficiary. Black’s Law Dictionary,
1740 (10th ed. 2014). An express trust is “created with the settlor’s express intent,
usually declared in writing.” Id. at 1743. The circuit court was mistaken in
concluding that an express trust can be created only in the manner described in
Brevard County. On the contrary, the Fifth District merely concluded that the
3
method and form used in that case did establish a trust, characterizing this as “the
simplest method of accomplishing [such] purpose.” Id. at 1194 (quoting William F.
Fratcher, Scott on Trusts, § 17.1, at 226-28 (4th ed. 1988)). The court did not
suggest that this is the only method.
A more recent edition of Scott on Trusts provides:
An express trust may arise even if the settlor has never called
it a trust, and even if the settlor does not understand what a
trust is. It is sufficient if what the settlor appears to have had
in mind is in its essentials what the courts mean when they
speak of a trust.
* * *
No particular words or conduct is necessary to
manifest the intention to create a trust. Indeed, it is possible
to create a trust without using either the word “trust” or the
word “trustee.”
1 Austin Wakeman Scott, William Franklin Fratcher, Mark L. Ascher, Scott &
Ascher on Trusts, § 2.1.8, at 40; § 4.2, at 179 (5th ed. 2006).
In Brevard County, the Fifth District observed that although the declaration
of trust named the owners as trustees of the real property for the use and benefit of
a particular corporation, the document was otherwise “silent as to any power or
duties of the [owners] as trustees and as to the disposition of the trust estate.”
Brevard County, 658 So. 2d at 1192. In contrast, the case at bar presents nearly the
opposite situation: the documents don’t state that appellant was “trustee” of the
property being held “in trust” for the University, but the documents are otherwise
4
replete with statements regarding the powers and duties of appellant for the benefit
of the University, including provisions requiring ultimate disposition of the trust
property to the University, all of which establish the creation of a trust.
We conclude that the documents established a trust for the benefit of the
University of Florida, and thus appellant, as trustee, has standing to contest the tax
assessment and is not barred by the time limit of section 194.171(2).
REVERSED and REMANDED.
PADOVANO, CLARK, and MARSTILLER, JJ., CONCUR.
5