FRANKLIN B. BYSTROM, AS PROPERTY APPRAISER OF DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
SAM BLOOM, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed a trial court decision that reduced a property appraisal for ad valorem tax purposes, holding that the property appraiser satisfied his burden of proof by considering statutory criteria, and the taxpayer failed to meet his burden of proving the assessment was arbitrary and unreasonable.
The property appraiser satisfied his burden by considering all statutory criteria. Once the appraiser met this burden, the burden shifted to the taxpayer to overcome the assessment by excluding every reasonable hypothesis of a legal assessment—a burden the taxpayer failed to meet by merely presenting evidence of a lower, more reasonable valuation.
[1] A property appraiser satisfies the statutory requirement to consider assessment criteria by presenting testimony that each criterion was considered.
[2] Once a property appraiser demonstrates consideration of statutory assessment criteria, the burden shifts to the taxpayer to overcome the appraiser's assessment by excludi…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the burden then shifted to the taxpayer 'not merely to establish that the taxpayer's evidence as to valuation of the property [was] more convincing than the property appraiser's, but rather to overcome the property appraiser's assessment by excluding every reasonable hypothesis of a legal assessment.'”
Establishes the legal standard for taxpayer's burden of proof once the appraiser establishes a prima facie case through statutory compliance.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe property appraiser Franklin B. Bystrom assessed property for ad valorem tax purposes and considered all eight criteria listed in Section 193.011, …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Burden Of Proof In Tax Assessment Challenges cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The final judgment under review is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to sustain the claim of the property appraiser Franklin B. Bystrom filed below. We reach this result based on the following briefly stated legal analysis.
First, the testimony below establishes that the property appraiser herein considered each of the eight criteria listed in Section 193.011, Florida Statutes (1979) in assessing the subject property for ad valorem tax purposes.
Second, this being so, the property appraiser satisfied his burden of proving his claim that his original property assessment should be reinstated and the Property Appraisal Adjustment Board’s reduction thereof rescinded; moreover, the burden then shifted to the taxpayer “not merely to establish that the taxpayer’s evidence as to valuation of the property [was] more convincing than the property appraiser’s, but rather to overcome the property appraiser’s assessment by excluding every reasonable hypothesis of a legal assessment.” Bystrom v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States, 416 So. 2d 1133, 1146 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (Pearson, Hubbart, JJ., concurring), pet. for review denied, 429 So. 2d 5 (Fla.1983); see Blake v. Xerox, 447 So. 2d 1348, 1350 (Fla.1984); Straughn v. Tuck, 354 So. 2d 368, 371 (Fla.1978); District School Board of Lee County v. Askew, 278 So. 2d 272, 277 (Fla.1973).
Third, the taxpayer’s evidence presented below fell far short of sustaining his above-stated burden of proof in this action as his expert witness — the only witness which he presented below — testified, at best, to a lower valuation of the subject property as being more reasonable under the circumstances, not that the property appraiser’s valuation was arbitrary and had no reasonable basis whatever. See Homer v. Dadeland Shopping Center, Inc., 229 So. 2d 834, 838 (Fla.1969); Powell v. Kelly, 223 So. 2d 305, 307 (Fla.1969); Muss v. Blake, 416 So. 2d 2 (Fla. 3d DCA), pet. for review denied, 424 So. 2d 762 (Fla.1982).
Fourth, the trial court was therefore in error in denying the property appraiser’s claim below.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bystrom v. BAL Harbour 101 Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 502 So. 2d 1312 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…any reasonable hypothesis. See Xerox, 447 So. 2d at 1350 (if assessment is within the range of reasonable appraisals it will be upheld); Powell v. Kelly, 223 So. 2d 305 (Fla.1969) (appraisal of real estate is an art not a science); Bystrom v. Bloom, 472 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (though a lower valuation under the circumstances might be more reasonable, the appraiser’s valuation will not be disturbed absent a showing that it was arbitrary and had no reasonable basis), review denied, 482 So. 2d 347 (Fla. 1…
-
Walker v. Trump, 549 So. 2d 1098 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)…Blake v. Xerox Corp. At most, Mr. Trump’s expert’s testimony supported a lower valuation based upon his methodology, but it did not prove that the property appraiser’s valuation was arbitrary and had no reasonable basis whatsoever. Bystrom v. Bloom, 472 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). Thus, the trial court erred in invalidating the assessment of the subject property by the property appraiser. In addition, the trial court’s reassessment of Mar-A-Lago cannot be sustained even if the strong presumption in favor…
Authorities Cited
- Straughn v. Harlan Tuck and Florence P. Tuck, 354 So. 2d 368 (Fla. 1977)
- Powell v. J. R. Kelly as Tax Collector of Bradford Cnty., 223 So. 2d 305 (Fla. 1969)
- Porter W. Homer v. Dadeland Shopping Ctr., Inc., 229 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 1969)
- Bystrom v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc'y OF the United States, 416 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Blake v. Xerox Corp., 447 So. 2d 1348 (Fla. 1984)
- The Dist. Sch. Bd. OF LEE Cnty. v. Reubin O'D. Askew, 278 So. 2d 272 (Fla. 1973)
- Gen. Motors Corp. v. Romine, 416 So. 2d 2 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)