September 23, 2008 Update

Judge Michael Jones has still not issued an opinion in our law suit (1108 Ariola LLC, et al. v. Chris Jones, et al. Case NO: 2004-CA-2290. But, there has been an opinion issued in another local case that could have potential significance in our case.

Danny Kepner, of Shell, Fleming, Davis & Menge, provided an update on this litigation (involving over 2,300 residential leaseholds on Pensacola Beach) at the September 18, 2008 meeting of Pensacola Beach Advocates. Mr. Kepner pointed out that a key legal point in this case is the contention that the two cases decided in the late 1980’s known as Bell v. Bryan are binding on the taxing authorities and prohibit the attempts to tax leasehold improvements as real property. This argument is based on the doctrine of stare decisis. The Bell v. Bryan cases form a precedent that must be followed by the Escambia County Circuit Court and the First District Court of Appeal.

Earlier in the day on September 18^th, the Supreme Court of Florida reversed an earlier opinion in the case of Strand v. Escambia County, and issued a new opinion. The substituted opinion relies on the doctrine of stare decisis. Danny Kepner has brought this case to the attention of Judge Michael Jones. It is the opinion of our attorney that the three significant questions that must be considered when a court is asked to recede from precedent should all be answered “no” when considering whether the local court or the First District should recede from Bell v. Bryan. Those questions are set out in the following quote from the new Supreme Court opinion.

“We have stated that we are committed to the doctrine of stare decisis. N. Fla. Women’s Health & Counseling Services, Inc. v. State, 866 So. 2d612,637 (Fla. 2003). In that case, we pointed out that the “doctrine of stare decisis, or the obligation of a court to abide by its own precedent, is grounded on the need for stability in the law and has been a fundamental tenet of Anglo-American jurisprudence for centuries.” Id. We observed that the doctrine was memorialized by this Court a century and a half ago in Tyson v. Mattair, 8 Fla. 107 (1858). We then set forth the questions to be considered when asked to recede from precedent, expressly stating that the presumption in favor of precedent is strong. The questions to be asked are:

1. Has the prior decision proved unworkable due to reliance on an impractical legal “fiction”?

2. Can the rule of law announced in the decision be reversed without serious injustice to those who have relied on it and without serious disruption in the stability of the law? And

3. Have the factual premises underlying the decision changed so drastically as to leave the decision’s central holding utterly without legal justification?”

The previous quote is taken from page 17 of the new opinion issued in the case of Strand v. Escambia County, Case No: SC06-1894.