JOSE MIGUEL MIRABAL, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, 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.
Appellant Mirabal challenged a dismissal of his tax assessment dispute with Florida's Department of Revenue. The court affirmed the dismissal, holding that Mirabal failed to comply with statutory jurisdictional requirements under Florida Statutes § 72.011, which mandate that a plaintiff contesting a tax assessment must tender the assessed amount, post a bond, obtain a written waiver, or request court-approved security arrangements at the time of filing.
The court held that compliance with § 72.011(3)(b) is jurisdictional and mandatory. At the time of filing a complaint contesting a tax assessment, a plaintiff must either tender the amount, post a bond, obtain a prior written waiver from the executive director, or request court-approved security arrangements. The court cannot grant 'judicial exemptions,' and only the executive director may waive these requirements.
[1] A plaintiff contesting the legality of a tax assessment must tender the amount of the assessment into the court registry or file a bond with the complaint, unless waived…
[2] Failure to satisfy statutory requirements for contesting a tax assessment at the time of filing a complaint renders the court without subject matter jurisdiction.
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“As per § 72.011(5), Fla.Stat., the requirements of § 72.011 are 'jurisdictional.' Therefore, without Plaintiff having satisfied any of the requirements of § 72.011, including the alternative requirements of either a written waiver or a motion for security arrangement, this Court is without subject matter jurisdiction.”
Establishes that statutory compliance is a jurisdictional requirement, not merely a procedural formality, and that the court lacks authority to proceed without such compliance.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMirabal filed a complaint contesting the legality of a tax assessment by the Department of Revenue. The complaint sought equitable relief but did not …
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 Jurisdictional Requirement cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant seeks review of a final order of dismissal in an action involving a tax levy and assessment. The order reads in part as follows:
“1. According to its own allegations, Plaintiffs Complaint seeks ‘equitable relief and contests the ‘legality of a tax assessment pursuant to Florida Statutes Section 72.011.’
2.Under § 72.011(3)(b)l, Fla.Stat., a Plaintiff contesting the legality of any tax, etc., must:
‘(b) 1. Tender into the registry of the court with the complaint the amount of the contested assessment complained of, including penalties and accrued interest, unless this requirement is waived in writing by the executive director of the department; or
2. File with the complaint a cash bond or a surety bond for the amount of the contested assessment endorsed by a surety company authorized to do business in this state, or by any other security arrangement as may be approved by the court, and conditioned upon payment in full of the judgment, including the taxes, costs, penalties, and interest, unless this requirement is waived in writing by the executive director of the department.’
It is noted that the above statutory requirements must be met when a complaint is filed. The key statutory phrases are ‘Tender into the registry of the court with the complaint’ or ‘file with the complaint.’
If these requirements cannot be met at the time of filing a complaint then a Plaintiff must either obtain a written waiver from the executive director of the department prior to filing the complaint or obtain some kind of security arrangement as may be approved by the Court and conditioned upon payment in full of the judgment, including the taxes, costs, penalties and interest.
3. In this case, Plaintiff did not obtain a written waiver at the time of filing the complaint, but merely argued he is ‘seeking’ one. Further, Plaintiff did not request a security arrangement by motion at the time of bringing suit.
4. This Court, under the express language of the statute, cannot grant ‘judicial exemptions’ since the provision for ‘other security arrangement’ has to be conditioned upon payment in full of the judgment. An ‘exemption’ is not a 'security arrangement.’ Moreover, only the executive director of the Department of Revenue can waive the above-mentioned statutory requirements.
It is clear from the terms of the statute itself that at the time of filing the complaint the Plaintiff herein should have: (1) tendered with the complaint the amount of the contested assessment, or (2) filed a cash or surety bond, or (3) already obtained a written waiver from the Department of Revenue or, (4) requested by motion a ‘security arrangement’ at the time of bringing this cause of action.
5. As per § 72.011(5), Fla.Stat., the requirements of § 72.011 are ‘jurisdictional.’ Therefore, without Plaintiff having satisfied any of the requirements of § 72.011, including the alternative requirements of either a written waiver or a motion for security arrangement, this Court is without subject matter jurisdiction.”
We find no merit and affirm. Bystrom v. Diaz, 514 So. 2d 1072 (Fla.1987); North Port Bank v. State, Dept. of Revenue, 313 So. 2d 683 (Fla.1975); Department of Revenue v. Rudd, 545 So. 2d 369 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Markham v. Hinckley, 544 So. 2d 1139 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); Hirsch v. Crews, 494 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Clark v. Cook, 481 So. 2d 929 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Henry v. Lemac Builders, Inc., 245 So. 2d 115 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971); Miami Super Cold Co. v. Giffin Industries, Inc., 178 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Don's SOD Co., Inc. v. Dep't of Revenue, 661 So. 2d 896 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)…he Legislature to prevent a constitutional challenge to those very provisions that bar access to the court. Such a ruling could make a mockery of Article I, section 21, Florida Constitution. The Department relies on Mirabal v. Department of Revenue, 553 So. 2d 1297 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), which involved the same statute as this case, and which approved dismissal of a complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. However, in that case, the constitutionality of section 72.011 was apparently not raised, and it c…1 / 2
-
Mikos v. Honorable James S. Parker, 571 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)…ub, 527 So. 2d 814 (Fla.1988); Gulfside Interval Vacations, Inc. v. Schultz, 479 So. 2d 776 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), review denied, 488 So. 2d 830 (Fla.1986); Clark v. Cook, 481 So. 2d 929 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); and Mirabal v. State, Department of Revenue, 553 So. 2d 1297 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). These cases are distinguishable from the case at hand because, in each case, the taxpayer either failed to pay the disputed tax prior to filing the complaint and/or failed to file a complaint within the statutory time limits. Her…
-
Dep't OF Revenue v. Swago T-Shirts, Inc., 877 So. 2d 761 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)…ragraph (b), the plaintiff shall be given a reasonable time within which to comply before the action is dismissed. (Emphasis added). The requirements of section 72.011 are jurisdictional. See § 72.011(5); see also Mirabal v. State Dep’t of Revenue, 553 So. 2d 1297, 1298 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (affirming trial court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction where requirements of 72.011 were not satisfied). The fact that Swago’s action is one for declaratory relief does not excuse it from complying with t…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Bystrom v. Diaz, 514 So. 2d 1072 (Fla. 1987)
- N. Port Bank v. State, 313 So. 2d 683 (Fla. 1975)
- Clark v. Honorable Jack H. Cook, 481 So. 2d 929 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)
- Hirsh v. Crews, 494 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- Dep't OF Revenue v. M.E. Rudd and Jean C. Rudd, 545 So. 2d 369 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)
- Markham v. Honorable Harry G. Hinckley, Jr., 544 So. 2d 1139 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)
- Miami Super Cold Co., Inc. v. Giffin Indus., Inc., 178 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Omer Henry v. Lemac Builders, Inc., 245 So. 2d 115 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)