CHARLOTTE TAYLOR, APPELLANT,
v.
CITY OF LAKE WORTH, ET AL., 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.
Taylor sought to amend her complaint to add a tax assessment claim after the Value Adjustment Board denied her relief. The court affirmed the trial court's denial of the amendment motion, holding that Taylor failed to comply with procedural requirements and missed the statutory 60-day filing deadline under Florida's jurisdictional statute of non-claim.
The court affirmed the denial of the amendment motion on two grounds: (1) Taylor violated Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.190(a) by failing to attach the proposed amended pleading to her motion to amend, and (2) the 60-day filing deadline in section 194.171(2), Florida Statutes, is a jurisdictional statute of non-claim that cannot be enlarged and bars untimely claims automatically.
[1] A motion to amend a complaint must attach the proposed amended pleading.
[2] A sixty-day period to contest a tax assessment after a value adjustment board decision is a jurisdictional statute of non-claim.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.190(a) states that 'the party shall attach the proposed amended pleading to the motion.' This is a mandatory requirement.”
Establishes the procedural violation in Taylor's failure to attach the proposed amended complaint to her motion to amend.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTaylor filed a multi-count complaint against government entities and employees, including a challenge to her property tax assessment. The Value Adjust…
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 Motion To Amend Complaint cases and more on FLexlaw
[*244] STONE, J.
We affirm the trial court order denying Taylor the right to amend her complaint to assert, for the first time, claims concerning her 2005 tax assessment.
As part of a multi-count complaint against various government entities and employees, Taylor contested the tax assessed on her property. The Value Adjustment Board denied Taylor relief for 2005 taxes in a decision dated January 17, 2006. On March 16, 2006, Taylor filed a motion to amend her third amended complaint, apparently intending to add this claim to her other unrelated counts. The second line of the motion stated that the “4th amended complaint is attached”; however, a proposed amended pleading was not attached to the motion. Instead, the next day, Taylor filed a motion for a twenty-day extension of time to file the fourth amended complaint, alleging that she had been too ill to complete it. The property appraiser opposed both motions on the grounds that the fourth amended complaint was not attached to the motion to amend and that the sixty-day filing period specified in section 194.171, Florida Statutes, had expired and could not be enlarged, as it is a jurisdictional statute of non-claim.
First, Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.190(a) states that “the party shall attach the proposed amended pleading to the motion.” This is a mandatory requirement. Second, subsection (2) of 194.171, Florida Statutes, provides that “[n]o action shall be brought to contest a tax assessment after 60 days from the date the assessment being contested is certified for collection ... or after 60 days from the date a [value adjustment board] decision is rendered.” Subsection (6) further states that the requirements of subsection (2) are jurisdictional. The Florida Supreme Court has recognized the interplay of statutory sub-sections involved here as a jurisdictional statute of non-claim. Markham v. Neptune Hollywood Beach Club, 527 So. 2d 814, 816 (Fla.1988); see also Cason v. Dep’t of Mgmt. Servs., 944 So. 2d 306, 310 (Fla.2006). A jurisdictional statute of non-claim operates “to bar untimely claims without any action by the opponent and deprive[s] the court of the power to adjudicate them.” Comerica Bank & Trust v. SDI Operating Partners, L.P., 673 So. 2d 163, 166 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). Put another way, “[a]n untimely claim filed pursuant to a jurisdictional statute of nonclaim is automatically barred.” May v. Ill. Nat'l Ins., 771 So. 2d 1143, 1151 (Fla.2000) (citing Miller v. Nolte, 453 So. 2d 397 (Fla.1984)).
Here, the sixty-day period expired on March 20, 2006. The amended pleading was not filed by that date. We conclude that simply filing the motion for leave to file, without attaching a copy of the fourth amended complaint which was not yet prepared, was insufficient to meet the non-claim provisions of the statute. Therefore, the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to consider this claim.
With regard to Taylor’s additional claim for sanctions, no authority exists for an appellate court to impose sanctions for conduct occurring in the trial court. Boca Burger, Inc. v. Forum, 912 So. 2d 561, 569 (Fla.2005).
Therefore, the order is affirmed.
POLEN and GROSS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Birdie M. Varnedore, M.D. v. Copeland, 210 So. 3d 741 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)
-
Am. Heritage Window Fashions, LLC v. Dep't OF Revenue, 191 So. 3d 516 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)…h a statute “automatically ' bars untimely claims and is not subject'to ’waiver or extension,” May v. Ill. Nat’l Ins. Co., 771 So. 2d 1143, 1157 (Fla.2000), and operates as a divestiture of jurisdiction to hear a claim, Taylor v. City of Lake Worth, 964 So. 2d 243, 244 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). In section 72.011(2)(a), then, the legislature established an absolute rule that assessment contests must be brought within sixty days of finality. Interpreting the separate statutory provision governing contests of refund…
-
Nikolits v. Neff, 184 So. 3d 538 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)…less of the nature of the taxpayer’s claim”); Markham v. Neptune Hollywood Beach Club, 527 So. 2d 814, 815 (Fla.1988) (recognizing that this jurisdictional statute of non-claim bars untimely challenges); see also Taylor [*541] v. City of Lake Worth, 964 So. 2d 243, 244 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). In addition, the statute providing for the transfer of an SOH benefit expressly prohibits any retroactive adjustment of a prior assessment. § 193.155(8)(i)8., Fla. Stat. (2012) (“This subsection does not authorize the cons…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Boca Burger, Inc. v. Forum, 912 So. 2d 561 (Fla. 2005)
- David R. MAY Ad Litem of the Estate of Oscar T. Bradley v. Ill. Nat'l Ins. Co., 771 So. 2d 1143 (Fla. 2000)
- Cason v. Fla. Dep't OF Mgmt. Servs., 944 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 2006)
- Markham v. Neptune Hollywood Beach Club, 527 So. 2d 814 (Fla. 1988)
- Comerica Bank & Tr. v. SDI Operating P'rs, L.P., 673 So. 2d 163 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Miller v. Nolte, 453 So. 2d 397 (Fla. 1984)