Gregory S. Brown, Santa Rosa County Property Appraiser vs City of Gulf Breeze, a municipal corporation; et al.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________ No. 1D19-4245 _____________________________ GREGORY S. BROWN, Santa Rosa County Property Appraiser, Appellant, v. CITY OF GULF BREEZE, a municipal corporation; et al., Appellees. _____________________________ On appeal from the Circuit Court for Santa Rosa County. J. Scott Duncan, Judge. May 4, 2022 ON MOTIONS FOR REHEARING EN BANC AND CERTIFICATION B.L. THOMAS, J. We deny Appellee’s motion for rehearing en banc and grant Appellee’s motion to certify a question of great importance to the Florida Supreme Court. We certify the following question, in accordance with rule 9.030(a)(2)(A)(v) of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, as one of great public importance: IS A CITY’S PUBLIC GOLF COURSE STILL BEING “USED EXCLUSIVELY BY IT FOR MUNICIPAL OR PUBLIC PURPOSES,” SO THAT IT REMAINS TAX EXEMPT UNDER ARTICLE VII, SECTION 3 OF THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION, IF THE CITY TURNS THE COURSE AND ITS APPURTENANT FACILITIES OVER TO A PRIVATE BUSINESS TO OPERATE AND MANAGE FOR THE BUSINESS’S OWN PROFIT OR LOSS, IN RETURN FOR AN ANNUAL FEE THAT THE BUSINESS PAYS TO THE CITY FOR THE PRIVILEGE? TANENBAUM, J., concurs; MAKAR, J., concurs with opinion. _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. _____________________________ MAKAR, J., concurring In light of the certification of a question of great public importance, the need for en banc review is lessened or, if review is granted, eliminated. For this reason, I concur in the denial of the motion for rehearing en banc. _____________________________ Loren E. Levy and Stuart W. Smith, The Levy Law Firm, Tallahassee, for Appellant. Edward P. Fleming and R. Todd Harris, McDonald Fleming, LLP, Pensacola; Heather F. Lindsay, Lindsay & Lindsay, P.A., Milton, for Appellees. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.