Florida Statute 193.461 - Full Text and Legal Analysis

The 2025 Florida Statutes

Title XIV
TAXATION AND FINANCE

Chapter 193
ASSESSMENTS

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 193.461

193.461 Agricultural lands; classification and assessment; mandated eradication or quarantine program; natural disasters.—

(1) The property appraiser shall, on an annual basis, classify for assessment purposes all lands within the county as either agricultural or nonagricultural.

(2) Any landowner whose land is denied agricultural classification by the property appraiser may appeal to the value adjustment board. The property appraiser shall notify the landowner in writing of the denial of agricultural classification on or before July 1 of the year for which the application was filed. The notification shall advise the landowner of his or her right to appeal to the value adjustment board and of the filing deadline. The property appraiser shall have available at his or her office a list by ownership of all applications received showing the acreage, the full valuation under s. 193.011, the valuation of the land under the provisions of this section, and whether or not the classification requested was granted.

(3)(a) Lands may not be classified as agricultural lands unless a return is filed on or before March 1 of each year. Before classifying such lands as agricultural lands, the property appraiser may require the taxpayer or the taxpayer’s representative to furnish the property appraiser such information as may reasonably be required to establish that such lands were actually used for a bona fide agricultural purpose. Failure to make timely application by March 1 constitutes a waiver for 1 year of the privilege granted in this section for agricultural assessment. However, an applicant who is qualified to receive an agricultural classification who fails to file an application by March 1 must file an application for the classification with the property appraiser on or before the 25th day after the mailing by the property appraiser of the notice required under s. 194.011(1). Upon receipt of sufficient evidence, as determined by the property appraiser, that demonstrates that the applicant was unable to apply for the classification in a timely manner or that otherwise demonstrates extenuating circumstances that warrant the granting of the classification, the property appraiser may grant the classification. If the applicant files an application for the classification and fails to provide sufficient evidence to the property appraiser as required, the applicant may file, pursuant to s. 194.011(3), a petition with the value adjustment board requesting that the classification be granted. The petition may be filed at any time during the taxable year on or before the 25th day following the mailing of the notice by the property appraiser as provided in s. 194.011(1). Notwithstanding s. 194.013, the applicant must pay a nonrefundable fee of $15 upon filing the petition. Upon reviewing the petition, if the person is qualified to receive the classification and demonstrates particular extenuating circumstances judged by the value adjustment board to warrant granting the classification, the value adjustment board may grant the classification for the current year. The owner of land that was classified agricultural in the previous year and whose ownership or use has not changed may reapply on a short form as provided by the department. The lessee of property may make original application or reapply using the short form if the lease, or an affidavit executed by the owner, provides that the lessee is empowered to make application for the agricultural classification on behalf of the owner and a copy of the lease or affidavit accompanies the application. A county may, at the request of the property appraiser and by a majority vote of its governing body, waive the requirement that an annual application or statement be made for classification of property within the county after an initial application is made and the classification granted by the property appraiser. Such waiver may be revoked by a majority vote of the governing body of the county.

(b) Subject to the restrictions specified in this section, only lands that are used primarily for bona fide agricultural purposes shall be classified agricultural. The term “bona fide agricultural purposes” means good faith commercial agricultural use of the land.

1. In determining whether the use of the land for agricultural purposes is bona fide, the following factors may be taken into consideration:

a. The length of time the land has been so used.

b. Whether the use has been continuous.

c. The purchase price paid.

d. Size, as it relates to specific agricultural use, but a minimum acreage may not be required for agricultural assessment.

e. Whether an indicated effort has been made to care sufficiently and adequately for the land in accordance with accepted commercial agricultural practices, including, without limitation, fertilizing, liming, tilling, mowing, reforesting, and other accepted agricultural practices.

f. Whether the land is under lease and, if so, the effective length, terms, and conditions of the lease.

g. Such other factors as may become applicable.

2. Offering property for sale does not constitute a primary use of land and may not be the basis for denying an agricultural classification if the land continues to be used primarily for bona fide agricultural purposes while it is being offered for sale.

(c) The maintenance of a dwelling on part of the lands used for agricultural purposes does not in itself preclude an agricultural classification.

(d) When property receiving an agricultural classification contains a residence under the same ownership, the portion of the property consisting of the residence and curtilage must be assessed separately, pursuant to s. 193.011, to qualify for the assessment limitation set forth in s. 193.155. The remaining property may be classified under the provisions of paragraphs (a) and (b).

(e) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (a), land that has received an agricultural classification from the value adjustment board or a court of competent jurisdiction pursuant to this section is entitled to receive such classification in any subsequent year until such agricultural use of the land is abandoned or discontinued, the land is diverted to a nonagricultural use, or the land is reclassified as nonagricultural pursuant to subsection (4). The property appraiser must, no later than January 31 of each year, provide notice to the owner of land that was classified agricultural in the previous year informing the owner of the requirements of this paragraph and requiring the owner to certify that neither the ownership nor the use of the land has changed. The department shall, by administrative rule, prescribe the form of the notice to be used by the property appraiser under this paragraph. If a county has waived the requirement that an annual application or statement be made for classification of property pursuant to paragraph (a), the county may, by a majority vote of its governing body, waive the notice and certification requirements of this paragraph and shall provide the property owner with the same notification provided to owners of land granted an agricultural classification by the property appraiser. Such waiver may be revoked by a majority vote of the county’s governing body. This paragraph does not apply to any property if the agricultural classification of that property is the subject of current litigation.

(4) The property appraiser shall reclassify the following lands as nonagricultural:

(a) Land diverted from an agricultural to a nonagricultural use.

(b) Land no longer being utilized for agricultural purposes.

(5) For the purpose of this section, the term “agricultural purposes” includes, but is not limited to, horticulture; floriculture; viticulture; forestry; dairy; livestock; poultry; bee; pisciculture, if the land is used principally for the production of tropical fish; aquaculture as defined in s. 597.0015; algaculture; sod farming; and all forms of farm products as defined in s. 823.14(3) and farm production.

(6)(a) In years in which proper application for agricultural assessment has been made and granted pursuant to this section, the assessment of land shall be based solely on its agricultural use. The property appraiser shall consider the following use factors only:

1. The quantity and size of the property;

2. The condition of the property;

3. The present market value of the property as agricultural land;

4. The income produced by the property;

5. The productivity of land in its present use;

6. The economic merchantability of the agricultural product; and

7. Such other agricultural factors as may from time to time become applicable, which are reflective of the standard present practices of agricultural use and production.

(b) Notwithstanding any provision relating to annual assessment found in s. 192.042, the property appraiser shall rely on 5-year moving average data when utilizing the income methodology approach in an assessment of property used for agricultural purposes.

(c)1. For purposes of the income methodology approach to assessment of property used for agricultural purposes, irrigation systems, including pumps and motors, physically attached to the land shall be considered a part of the average yields per acre and shall have no separately assessable contributory value.

2. Litter containment structures located on producing poultry farms and animal waste nutrient containment structures located on producing dairy farms shall be assessed by the methodology described in subparagraph 1.

3. Structures or improvements used in horticultural production for frost or freeze protection, which are consistent with the interim measures or best management practices adopted by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services pursuant to s. 570.93 or s. 403.067(7)(c), shall be assessed by the methodology described in subparagraph 1.

4. Screened enclosed structures used in horticultural production for protection from pests and diseases or to comply with state or federal eradication or compliance agreements shall be assessed by the methodology described in subparagraph 1.

(d) In years in which proper application for agricultural assessment has not been made, the land shall be assessed under the provisions of s. 193.011.

(7)¹(a) Lands classified for assessment purposes as agricultural lands which are taken out of production by a state or federal eradication or quarantine program, including the Citrus Health Response Program, shall continue to be classified as agricultural lands for 10 years after the date of execution of a compliance agreement between the landowner and the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services or a federal agency, as applicable, pursuant to such program or successor programs. Lands under these programs which are converted to fallow or otherwise nonincome-producing uses shall continue to be classified as agricultural lands and shall be assessed at a de minimis value of up to $50 per acre on a single-year assessment methodology while fallow or otherwise used for nonincome-producing purposes pursuant to the requirements of the compliance agreement. Lands under these programs which are replanted in citrus pursuant to the requirements of the compliance agreement shall continue to be classified as agricultural lands and shall be assessed at a de minimis value of up to $50 per acre, on a single-year assessment methodology, for 10 years after the date of execution of a compliance agreement. However, lands converted to other income-producing agricultural uses permissible under such programs shall be assessed pursuant to this section. Land under a mandated eradication or quarantine program which is diverted from an agricultural to a nonagricultural use shall be assessed under s. 193.011.

(b) Lands classified for assessment purposes as agricultural lands that participate in a dispersed water storage program pursuant to a contract with the Department of Environmental Protection or a water management district which requires flooding of land shall continue to be classified as agricultural lands for the duration of the inclusion of the lands in such program or successor programs and shall be assessed as nonproductive agricultural lands. Land that participates in a dispersed water storage program that is diverted from an agricultural to a nonagricultural use shall be assessed under s. 193.011.

(c) Lands classified for assessment purposes as agricultural lands which are not being used for agricultural production as a result of a natural disaster for which a state of emergency is declared pursuant to s. 252.36, when such disaster results in the halting of agricultural production, must continue to be classified as agricultural lands for 5 years after termination of the emergency declaration. However, if such lands are diverted from agricultural use to nonagricultural use during or after the 5-year recovery period, such lands must be assessed under s. 193.011. This paragraph applies retroactively to natural disasters that occurred on or after July 1, 2017.

(8) Lands classified for assessment purposes as agricultural lands, which are not being used for agricultural production due to a hurricane that made landfall in this state during calendar year 2017, must continue to be classified as agricultural lands for assessment purposes through December 31, 2022, unless the lands are converted to a nonagricultural use. Lands converted to nonagricultural use are not covered by this subsection and must be assessed as otherwise provided by law.

History.—s. 1, ch. 59-226; s. 1, ch. 67-117; ss. 1, 2, ch. 69-55; s. 1, ch. 72-181; s. 4, ch. 74-234; s. 3, ch. 76-133; s. 15, ch. 82-208; ss. 10, 80, ch. 82-226; s. 1, ch. 85-77; s. 3, ch. 86-300; s. 23, ch. 90-217; ss. 132, 142, ch. 91-112; s. 63, ch. 94-353; s. 1468, ch. 95-147; s. 1, ch. 95-404; s. 1, ch. 98-313; s. 1, ch. 99-351; s. 3, ch. 2000-308; s. 4, ch. 2001-279; s. 15, ch. 2002-18; s. 2, ch. 2003-162; s. 43, ch. 2003-254; s. 1, ch. 2006-45; s. 2, ch. 2008-197; ss. 1, 11, ch. 2010-277; HJR 5-A, 2010 Special Session A; s. 2, ch. 2011-206; s. 15, ch. 2012-83; s. 6, ch. 2013-72; s. 1, ch. 2013-95; s. 2, ch. 2014-150; s. 1, ch. 2016-88; s. 1, ch. 2018-84; s. 12, ch. 2018-118; s. 5, ch. 2025-208.

¹Note.—Section 6, ch. 2025-208, provides:

“(1) The amendments made by this act to s. 193.461(7), Florida Statutes, apply to agricultural lands that have been taken out of production and are eligible to receive a de minimis assessment on or after July 1, 2025.

“(2) This section shall take effect upon becoming a law.”

F.S. 193.461 on Google Scholar

F.S. 193.461 on CourtListener

Amendments to 193.461

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 193.461

Total Results: 79

Straughn v. Tuck

354 So. 2d 368

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Dec 8, 1977 | Docket: 1279089

Cited 28 times | Published

classification pursuant to an unconstitutional statute, Section 193.461, Florida Statutes (1973) and was assessed without

Straughn v. K & K Land Management, Inc.

326 So. 2d 421

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jan 14, 1976 | Docket: 1434362

Cited 25 times | Published

which entered a final judgment declaring Section 193.461(4)(c), Florida Statutes, to be unconstitutional

Greenwood v. Oates

251 So. 2d 665

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jul 12, 1971 | Docket: 459269

Cited 22 times | Published

(1969), F.S.A. [formerly § 193.11 (1967)], and § 193.461 (1969) [formerly § 193.201 (1967)] (popularly

Markham v. Fogg

458 So. 2d 1122

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Oct 18, 1984 | Docket: 1452175

Cited 16 times | Published

case pertaining to the classification under section 193.461, Florida Statutes (1973)[1] of certain lands

Hausman v. Rudkin

268 So. 2d 407

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 8, 1972 | Docket: 1739381

Cited 13 times | Published

for agricultural zoning under the terms of Section 193.461, F.S. 1969, F.S.A. The critical provisions

Harbor Ventures, Inc. v. Hutches

366 So. 2d 1173, 1979 Fla. LEXIS 4540

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jan 18, 1979 | Docket: 374198

Cited 12 times | Published

Justice. We are asked to determine whether section 193.461(4)(a)3., Florida Statutes (1973), is unconstitutional

Bass v. General Development Corp.

374 So. 2d 479

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jun 28, 1979 | Docket: 430637

Cited 10 times | Published

Court for St. Lucie County, Florida, declaring Section 193.461(4)(a)4, Florida Statutes (1975), unconstitutional

Department of Revenue v. Goembel

382 So. 2d 783

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 9, 1980 | Docket: 1255036

Cited 8 times | Published

agricultural classification for tax purposes.[2] Section 193.461(4)(c), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1972) creates

Roden v. K & K Land Management, Inc.

368 So. 2d 588, 1978 Fla. LEXIS 4864

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jul 20, 1978 | Docket: 1389587

Cited 8 times | Published

1978), we reviewed the constitutionality of Section 193.461(3), Florida Statutes. The statute mandates

Blake v. RMS Holding Corp.

341 So. 2d 795

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 18, 1977 | Docket: 1393986

Cited 7 times | Published

information as the assessor properly should require. Section 193.461(3)(a) Florida Statutes (1973). Additionally

Rainey v. Nelson

257 So. 2d 538

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jan 26, 1972 | Docket: 1685321

Cited 7 times | Published

Court of Pinellas County declaring Fla. Stat. § 193.461, F.S.A. (formerly 193.201) unconstitutional on

Fisher v. Schooley

371 So. 2d 496

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 9, 1979 | Docket: 1786416

Cited 5 times | Published

commercial agricultural use of the land" pursuant to § 193.461, Fla. Stat. (Supp. 1978). That statute provides

Walden v. Tuten

347 So. 2d 129

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 8, 1977 | Docket: 1290622

Cited 5 times | Published

placed on it. Accordingly, in reliance on Section 193.461(4)(c), Florida Statutes (1973), the appellant

Smith v. Ring

250 So. 2d 913

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 3, 1971 | Docket: 422331

Cited 5 times | Published

SAM, Associate Judge, concur. NOTES [1] F.S. § 193.461(3), F.S.A. [2] Walden v. Borden Company (Fla

Conrad v. Sapp

252 So. 2d 225

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jul 14, 1971 | Docket: 1690085

Cited 5 times | Published

Stat. §§ 193.11 (1965); 193.201 (1967) [now § 193.461], F.S.A. Parcel A was purchased by respondents

LOVE PGI PARTNERS, LP v. Schultz

706 So. 2d 887, 1998 WL 44481

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 6, 1998 | Docket: 444858

Cited 4 times | Published

consider the appropriate statutory factors under § 193.461. See Davis v. St. Joe Paper Co., 652 So.2d 907

Aitken v. Markham

595 So. 2d 159, 1992 WL 26479

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 19, 1992 | Docket: 1708793

Cited 4 times | Published

well as the statutory factors enumerated in section 193.461, Florida Statutes (1987). Gianolio v. Markham

Robbins v. Yusem

559 So. 2d 1185, 1990 WL 17483

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 27, 1990 | Docket: 1524780

Cited 4 times | Published

property within the meaning of the Greenbelt Law, section 193.461, Florida Statutes (1987). The taxpayer appealed

Straughn v. K & K MANAGEMENT, INC.

347 So. 2d 724

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 15, 1977 | Docket: 1687102

Cited 4 times | Published

bringing into play the following provisions of Section 193.461(4)(c), Florida Statutes (1973): "Sale of land

Cassady v. McKinney

296 So. 2d 94

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 14, 1974 | Docket: 1754686

Cited 4 times | Published

treatment mandated by Florida's "Green Belt" law, Fla. Stat. 193.461(6), F.S.A. 1971. At the time this action

Walden v. Borden Company

235 So. 2d 300

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: May 6, 1970 | Docket: 1382794

Cited 4 times | Published

67-117, Acts of 1967, carried forward as Section 193.461, Fla. Stat. 1969, F.S.A.) providing for the

Markham v. PPI, INC.

843 So. 2d 922, 2003 WL 1239697

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 19, 2003 | Docket: 1244067

Cited 3 times | Published

agricultural purpose" within the meaning of section 193.461, Florida Statutes (2001). We hold that it does

Schultz v. LOVE PGI PARTNERS, LP

731 So. 2d 1270, 24 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 152, 1999 Fla. LEXIS 510, 1999 WL 176060

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Apr 1, 1999 | Docket: 1409124

Cited 3 times | Published

section 4(a) of the Florida Constitution and section 193.461(3)(b), Florida Statutes (1993). The Fifth District

Bystrom v. Union Land Inv., Inc.

477 So. 2d 585, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2521

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 6, 1985 | Docket: 1320754

Cited 3 times | Published

be cleared by February 1, 1980. Pursuant to Section 193.461(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1979), Union timely

St. Joe Paper Co. v. Adkinson

400 So. 2d 983

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 1, 1981 | Docket: 1677220

Cited 3 times | Published

the small lakes that is in controversy here. Section 193.461, Florida Statutes (1977), provides that the

Withers v. Metropolitan Dade County

290 So. 2d 573

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 5, 1974 | Docket: 1510369

Cited 3 times | Published

5, 1973, the Court heard final argument. "Section 193.461 F.S. (1971), F.S.A., grants preferential treatment

McKinney v. Hunt

251 So. 2d 6

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 3, 1971 | Docket: 459281

Cited 3 times | Published

Florida Statutes, as amended and renumbered Section 193.461, Florida Statutes, F.S.A. Plaintiff-appellees

Wilkinson v. Kirby

654 So. 2d 194, 1995 WL 228274

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 19, 1995 | Docket: 1303644

Cited 2 times | Published

granting an agricultural classification under section 193.461, Florida Statutes (1991), for approximately

The Glades, Inc. v. Colding

422 So. 2d 349

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 24, 1982 | Docket: 1479744

Cited 2 times | Published

such a classification. In 1980, pursuant to section 193.461(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1979), the property

FIRST NAT. BK. OF HOLLYWOOD v. Markham

342 So. 2d 1016

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 11, 1977 | Docket: 1521295

Cited 2 times | Published

bona fide agricultural purposes as defined in Section 193.461(3)(b), Florida Statutes (1976) which requires

McLendon v. Nikolits

211 So. 3d 92, 2017 WL 362555, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 765

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 25, 2017 | Docket: 60262708

Cited 1 times | Published

classification for only 2.25 acres, pursuant to section 193.461(1), Florida Statutes (2012). The McLendons

Robbins v. Racetrack Training Center, Inc.

833 So. 2d 306, 2003 WL 25872295

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 2, 2003 | Docket: 1258958

Cited 1 times | Published

bona fide agricultural purpose. We disagree. Section 193.461, Florida Statutes (1997), provides, in pertinent

St. Petersburg Kennel Club v. Smith

662 So. 2d 1270, 1995 WL 527207

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 8, 1995 | Docket: 1282671

Cited 1 times | Published

agricultural purposes within the meaning of section 193.461, Florida Statutes (1993). Kennel Club timely

Davis v. St. Joe Paper Co.

652 So. 2d 907, 1995 WL 121496

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 23, 1995 | Docket: 476031

Cited 1 times | Published

reasonable hypothesis of legal assessment). Section 193.461(3)(b), Florida Statutes, provides that "only

Ridgewood Phosphate Corp. v. Perkins

487 So. 2d 40, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 658

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 12, 1986 | Docket: 1796401

Cited 1 times | Published

pursuant to a county permit. As authorized by section 193.461(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1983), Ridgewood filed

Fogg v. Broward Cty.

397 So. 2d 944

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 8, 1981 | Docket: 1357712

Cited 1 times | Published

agricultural for ad valorem tax purposes pursuant to Section 193.461, Florida Statutes (1973). Appellants, E.C.

Monroe County, Florida, Etc. v. Sunset Gardens Estate Land Trust 2/10/2014, Etc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 12, 2025 | Docket: 69728624

Published

to the agricultural classification pursuant to § 193.461, Florida Statutes (2024).2 Because this remains

In Re: Amendments to the Florida Supreme Court Approved Family Law Forms—12.980(a), 12.980(f), 12.980(g), 12.980(i), 12.980(j), 12.980(n), 12.980(q), 12.980(t), and 12.980(w)

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jun 20, 2024 | Docket: 68869797

Published

bona fide agricultural purpose, as defined in section 193.461, Florida Statutes, or a service animal, as

LANCELOT KOLLMANN v. JENNIFER NICOL CAUDILL

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 27, 2023 | Docket: 68117313

Published

farm products . . . and farm production." § 193.461(5), Fla. Stat. (2022). " 'Farm product'

In Re: Amendments to Florida Supreme Court Approved Family Law Forms 12.980(a), 12.980(f), 12.980(n), 12.980(q), and 12.980(t)

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Aug 24, 2023 | Docket: 67723767

Published

bona fide agricultural purpose, as defined in section 193.461, Florida Statutes, or a service animal, as

In Re: Amendments to Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure, Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure, and Florida Supreme Court Approved Family Law Forms

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jul 14, 2022 | Docket: 63591314

Published

bona fide agricultural purpose, as defined in section 193.461, Florida Statutes, or a service animal, as

In Re: Amendments to the Florida Supreme Court Approved Family Law Forms – 12.980(a)-(d)

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jun 17, 2021 | Docket: 59992789

Published

bona fide agricultural purpose, as defined in section 193.461, Florida Statutes, or a service animal, as

Edward A. Crapo, in his capacity as Alachua County Property Appraiser v. Academy for Five Element Acupuncture, Inc., a Florida Non-Profit Corporation

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 8, 2019 | Docket: 15885445

Published

nonagricultural pursuant to subsection (4). § 193.461(3)(e), Fla. Stat. (2019) (emphasis added). He

Spencer Estates of Florida, LLC v. Havill

125 So. 3d 795, 2012 WL 6719463, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 22159

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 28, 2012 | Docket: 60236071

Published

classification in subsequent years pursuant to section 193.461(3)(e), Florida Statutes, unless a specified

Orange County Property Appraiser v. Sommers

84 So. 3d 1277, 2012 WL 1365061, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 6191

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 20, 2012 | Docket: 60306662

Published

and reassessed at just value accordingly. See § 193.461(4)(a), Fla. Stat. (2010). In similar fashion,

Tilton v. Gardner

52 So. 3d 771, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 19152, 2010 WL 5128092

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 17, 2010 | Docket: 60297841

Published

the trial court erred in its application of section 193.461(3)(e), Florida Statutes (2006), in determining

Ago

Florida Attorney General Reports | Filed: Jun 15, 2009 | Docket: 3255559

Published

building on land classified as agriculture under section 193.461, Florida Statutes, if those regulations do

RH Resorts, Ltd. v. Donegan

881 So. 2d 1152, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 10985, 2004 WL 1636931

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 23, 2004 | Docket: 1465753

Published

v. Pitsirelos, 721 So.2d 710 (Fla.1998). Section 193.461(3)(b) of the Florida Statutes (2001) sets forth

Turner v. Lusk

819 So. 2d 258, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 9193, 2002 WL 1393663

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 28, 2002 | Docket: 64815954

Published

classification by the statutory March 1 deadline. Under section 193.461(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1997), failure to

Sugarmill Woods, Inc. v. Schultz

823 So. 2d 807, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 8583, 2002 WL 1343549

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 21, 2002 | Docket: 64816864

Published

We agree with the trial court and affirm. Section 193.461(3)(a) provides that the failure to make an

Ago

Florida Attorney General Reports | Filed: Aug 8, 1991 | Docket: 3258664

Published

Agricultural Classification of Lands" (DR-482) under section 193.461, F.S., meet the criteria? 2 Section 201.022

Gianolio v. Markham

564 So. 2d 1131, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 4549, 1990 WL 86299

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 27, 1990 | Docket: 64651995

Published

appraiser’s determination. This appeal followed. Section 193.461, Florida Statutes (1989), deals with the agricultural

Champion Realty Corp. v. Burgess

541 So. 2d 615, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 801, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 2107

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 31, 1989 | Docket: 64641567

Published

good faith commercial agriculture purpose. See § 193.461(4)(c), Fla.Stat. This section also provides that

Zemel v. Wilkinson

501 So. 2d 694, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 416, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 6532

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 28, 1987 | Docket: 64624662

Published

-000 acres) classified agricultural under section 193.461, Florida Statutes (1981). The applications

Markham v. June Rose

495 So. 2d 865, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2136

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 8, 1986 | Docket: 1758931

Published

qualified for agricultural treatment under section 193.461, Florida Statutes (1983). The parcel in issue

Beker Maritime Co. v. Perkins

493 So. 2d 494, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1738, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 9288

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 6, 1986 | Docket: 64621326

Published

from ad valorem taxation in accordance with section 193.461, Florida Statutes. In 1982, Beker filed applications

Moses v. Bystrom

489 So. 2d 834, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 8121, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1255

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 3, 1986 | Docket: 64619905

Published

Dade County property appraiser as required by section 193.461(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1979).1 Prior to the

Daniel v. Stone

481 So. 2d 1251, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 114, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 5814

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 3, 1986 | Docket: 64616853

Published

homesite be reclassified as agricultural. Section 193.461(3)(b), Florida Statutes (1983), provides that

Daniel v. American Cyanamid Co.

480 So. 2d 678, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 39, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 16935

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 18, 1985 | Docket: 64616391

Published

its interest in *679the surface of the land. Section 193.-461(6)(a), Florida Statutes (1977), provided,

USS Agri-Chemicals, Division of United States Steel Corp. ex rel. USS Agri-Chemicals v. Stewart

476 So. 2d 327, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2346, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 16242

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 11, 1985 | Docket: 64614535

Published

Har-dee County, Florida. We affirm. Pursuant to section 193.461(3)(a), appellants filed a request for an agricultural

Lackey v. Little England, Inc.

461 So. 2d 281, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 130, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 11806

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 3, 1985 | Docket: 64608982

Published

zoning from agricultural to non-agrieultural. Section 193.461(4)(a)3, Florida Statutes (Supp.1982) requires

St. Joe Paper Co. v. James

429 So. 2d 705, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 18604

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 10, 1983 | Docket: 64596339

Published

question are classified as agricultural under Section 193.461, Florida Statutes, and were appraised by appellees

Czagas v. Maxwell

393 So. 2d 645, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 18704

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 11, 1981 | Docket: 64580206

Published

simply because it was less than twenty acres. Section 193.461(3)(b), Florida Statutes (1979), provides that:

Daniel v. Lynn

393 So. 2d 52, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 18720

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 30, 1981 | Docket: 64580006

Published

agricultural status. We hold that compliance with section 193.461(8)(a), Florida Statutes (1976 Supp.) (now section

Daniel v. Lynn

393 So. 2d 52, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 18720

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 30, 1981 | Docket: 64580006

Published

agricultural status. We hold that compliance with section 193.461(8)(a), Florida Statutes (1976 Supp.) (now section

Lauderdale v. Blake

351 So. 2d 742, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 17007

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 8, 1977 | Docket: 64561137

Published

purposes, their requests were denied pursuant to Section 193.461(4)(a), Florida Statutes (1972). The common

Markham v. Nationwide Development Co.

349 So. 2d 220, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 16104

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 9, 1977 | Docket: 64559865

Published

assessment as agricultural property under Section, 193.461, Florida Statutes (1973). We reach a contrary

Cassady v. McKinney

343 So. 2d 955, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 15284

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 23, 1977 | Docket: 64557716

Published

the tax assessor for failure to comply with Section 193.461(6), Florida Statutes, the “Green Belt Law.”

Doyle v. Askew

341 So. 2d 845

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 1, 1977 | Docket: 64556769

Published

SMITH, Judge. The issue is whether Section 193.461(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1973), which required applications

Department of Revenue v. Boyer

341 So. 2d 274, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 15072

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 11, 1977 | Docket: 64556619

Published

[see: Section 193.461, Florida Statutes (1974)] and, pursuant to the provisions of Section 193.461(3)(b)

St. Joe Paper Co. v. Conrad

333 So. 2d 527, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 15176

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 18, 1976 | Docket: 64554111

Published

lands used for agricultural timberlands under § 193.461, Florida Statutes, known as the green belt law

Walden v. Fletcher Avenue Development Corp.

313 So. 2d 65, 1975 Fla. App. LEXIS 14869

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 14, 1975 | Docket: 64546598

Published

agricultrual classification on the authority of § 193.461(4) (c), Fla.Stat., which states: “Sale of land

County of Volusia v. Union Camp Corp.

302 So. 2d 160, 1974 Fla. App. LEXIS 8394

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 24, 1974 | Docket: 64542050

Published

193.201 and ‘primarily’ so used under new Section 193.461 whether such use is being made directly by

Chapman v. Cassady

278 So. 2d 665, 1973 Fla. App. LEXIS 8096

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 6, 1973 | Docket: 64532639

Published

entitled to the benefits of agricultural zoning. Section 193.461(3), Florida Statutes, F.S.A.: “. . . All lands

Container Corp. of America v. Rutherford

293 So. 2d 379, 1973 Fla. App. LEXIS 6090

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 12, 1973 | Docket: 64538532

Published

assessed as agricultural under the provisions of Section 193.461(6), Florida Statutes F.S.A. At a hearing before

Smith v. Parrish

262 So. 2d 237, 1972 Fla. App. LEXIS 6720

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 23, 1972 | Docket: 64525949

Published

the tax year 1969 within the purview of F.S. Section 193.461, F.S.A. The trial court found from the evidence

Schooley v. Wetstone

258 So. 2d 483, 1972 Fla. App. LEXIS 7260

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 3, 1972 | Docket: 64524581

Published

amended § 193.201 F.S. (carried forward as F.S. § 193.461 F.S.A.). It provided for the mandatory zoning

St. Joe Paper Co. v. Mickler

241 So. 2d 415, 1970 Fla. App. LEXIS 5425

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 17, 1970 | Docket: 64517603

Published

arbitrary and contrary to the standards set in Section 193.461, Florida Statutes, F.S.A. A more precise statement

Sapp v. Conrad

240 So. 2d 884, 1970 Fla. App. LEXIS 5696

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 17, 1970 | Docket: 64517426

Published

193.201 and ‘primarily’ so used under new Section 193.461 whether such use is being made directly by