PIER HOUSE JOINT VENTURE, APPELLANT,
v.
ERVIN HIGGS, AS PROPERTY APPRAISER OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA; HARRY F. KNIGHT, AS REVENUE COLLECTOR OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA; AND RANDY MILLER, AS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, APPELLEES
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 court held that the property owner failed to establish that the property appraiser's assessment was unsupported or that the appraiser failed to consider statutory criteria.
The property owner challenged the property appraiser's assessment of their property after an adverse final judgment following a non-jury trial. The ow…
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 Challenge To Property Tax Assessment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the property owner Pier House Joint Venture from an adverse final judgment entered after a non-jury trial in an action instituted below challenging the Monroe County Property Appraiser Erwin Higgs’ assessment of the Pier House Inn and Beach Club in Key West, Florida. We reject the property owner’s points on appeal and affirm, thereby rendering moot the property assessor’s cross appeal.
First, we conclude that the property owner failed to establish below either (a) that the property appraiser’s assessment herein was not supported by a reasonable hypothesis, or (b) that the property appraiser failed to consider all of the statutory criteria established by Section 193.011, Florida Statutes (1987). The property owner’s attack on the property appraiser’s method of calculating the assessment based on the income approach and of determining valuation based on the cost approach falls far short of overcoming the presumptive validity of the property appraisal herein. Blake v. Xerox Corp., 447 So. 2d 1348 (Fla.1984); Daniel v. Canterbury Towers, Inc., 462 So. 2d 497 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Bystrom v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc’y of U.S., 416 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), rev. denied, 429 So. 2d 5 (Fla.1983).
Second, we conclude that the trial court did not commit reversible error with respect to the alleged exclusion of certain financial information relative to the 1986 assessment. The trial court, in fact, admitted the data in evidence and only later indicated that it would consider the property appraiser’s objection thereto; at no time, however, did the trial court exclude this data from evidence. In any event, the data was inadmissible because the property owner failed to reveal same in a timely fashion upon request of the property appraiser. Palm Corp. v. Homer, 261 So. 2d 822, 823 (Fla.1972).
The final judgment under review is therefore, in all respects,
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Havill v. Lake Port Props., Inc., 729 So. 2d 467 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)…plicable to Lake Port Square. The property owner’s attack on the Property Appraiser’s method of calculating the assessment “falls far short of overcoming the presumptive validity of the property appraisal herein.” Pier House Joint Venture v. Higgs, 555 So. 2d 899, 900 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). A tax assessment may not be overturned merely by showing that a lower valuation is more reasonable. Mastroianni v. Barnett Banks, Inc., 664 So. 2d 284, 288 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995), review denied, 673 So. 2d 29 (Fla.1996). It is…
-
Pier House Joint Venture v. Ervin Higgs, 581 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See and compare Pier House Joint Venture v. Higgs, 555 So. 2d 899 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990).…
-
Ervin Higgs v. Good, 813 So. 2d 178 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)…judicial reduction of his property’s tax assessment valuation. It is inappropriate for a taxpayer to conceal an ace-in-the-hole for subsequent play against an official who is attempting to carry out his duties. See Pier House Joint Venture v. Higgs, 555 So. 2d 899 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)(income data inadmissible because the property owner failed to reveal same in a timely fashion upon request of the property appraiser). If all taxpayers followed Good’s example the Appraiser’s office could be hamstrung. The decisi…
Authorities Cited
- 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)
- Palm Corp. v. Porter W. Homer, 261 So. 2d 822 (Fla. 1972)
- W.R. (Ray) Daniel, Jr. v. Canterbury Towers, Inc., 462 So. 2d 497 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)