WAL-MART STORES, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
ALVIN MAZOUREK, ETC., 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.
Wal-Mart sought clarification of this court's order following Florida Supreme Court review of a property tax appraisal dispute. The Supreme Court reversed two of three issues on appeal, but the District Court clarifies that its reversal of the counterclaim judgment—the third issue not reviewed by the Supreme Court—remains valid and enforceable.
The District Court's reversal of the circuit court's judgment on the counterclaim issue remains in full force and effect because the property appraiser did not challenge that ruling before the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court therefore did not address it.
[1] Sales taxes paid are external costs and do not add to property value for appraisal purposes.
[2] A property appraiser must follow statutory procedures for assessing unreported tangible personal property.
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“sales taxes paid are external costs and add nothing to the value”
Establishes the District Court's holding on the first issue regarding whether sales taxes should be included in the cost approach appraisal
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWal-Mart challenged a property appraisal by property appraiser Mazourek conducted using the cost approach method. The circuit court entered judgment a…
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.
PER CURIAM.
This cause came before this court on Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.’s (“Wal-Mart”) motion for clarification of our order dated December 20, 2002. Mazourek, the property appraiser, previously appealed a portion of this court’s prior decision1 to the Florida.Supreme Court. Specifically, the review by the supreme court was limited to only two of the three issues on appeal. The first issue concerned the property appraiser’s inclusion of sales taxes in an appraisal conducted pursuant to the cost approach. Our holding was that sales taxes paid are external costs and add nothing to the value. The second issue concerned whether the appraiser properly considered all the factors required in section 193.011, Florida Statutes.
The supreme court reversed our holding on those two issues, and pursuant to its instructions, this court, by order dated December 20, 2002, withdrew its prior mandate and affirmed the final judgment of the circuit court for Hernando County.2 Wal-Mart now asks this court to clarify its order with respect to the third issue of our previous decision which was not challenged in the supreme court.
The third issue involved a counterclaim. In its final judgment, the circuit court entered judgment in favor of the property appraiser on a counterclaim filed by the property appraiser against Wal-Mart. The circuit court permitted the property appraiser to assess, through the counterclaim, unidentified tangible personal property which Wal-Mart had allegedly failed to report. In our decision, however, this court concluded that the property appraiser’s attempt to assess the property through a counterclaim, rather than through the statutory procedures provided for that purpose, was improper. As a result, we reversed the circuit court’s judgment in favor of the property appraiser on the counterclaim issue.
In the appeal of this court’s decision, the property appraiser did not challenge this court’s ruling on the counterclaim issue. In fact, in footnote 4 of its Second Revised Opinion, the supreme court noted that neither party raised the counterclaim issue. As a result, the supreme court did not address this court’s decision on the counterclaim issue. Thus, this court’s decision which reversed the circuit court on the counterclaim issue remains in full force and effect. We clarify the December 20, 2002 order by recognizing that the portion of our original decision reversing the circuit court’s judgment on the counterclaim issue remains valid.
The case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent here with. MOTION GRANTED; REMANDED.
PETERSON, SAWAYA and PLETJS, JJ., concur. . Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Mazourek, 778 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000).
. Mazourek v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 831 So. 2d 85 (Fla.2002).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Mazourek v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 831 So. 2d 85 (Fla. 2002)
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Mazourek, 778 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)