CARABELLE PROPERTIES LIMITED, A TEXAS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, APPELLANT,
v.
DORIS PENDLETON, AS PROPERTY APPRAISER OF FRANKLIN COUNTY, FLORIDA; JAMES A HARRIS, JR., AS TAX COLLECTOR OF FRANKLIN COUNTY, FLORIDA; AND JIM ZINGALE, AS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE 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.
A golf course owner successfully challenged property tax assessments for 2005 and 2006, with the court affirming the remand for 2005 and reversing the 2006 assessment because the property appraiser failed to adequately account for land use restrictions when comparing the property to comparable parcels.
A property appraiser must adequately account for local or state land use regulations, including restrictions imposed by a planned unit development order, when using comparable sales to assess property value under section 193.011(2), Florida Statutes.
[1] A property appraiser must adequately account for local or state land use regulations, including restrictions imposed by a planned unit development order, when using compa…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCarabelle Properties Limited, a Texas limited partnership, owns a golf course in Franklin County, Florida. The property appraiser assessed the propert…
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
In this case, a taxpayer that owns a golf course challenges rulings made in two cases consolidated for trial, involving the assessments for tax years 2005 and 2006. The trial court concluded that the taxpayer met its burden to prove that the property appraiser improperly applied the criteria set out in section 193.011, Florida Statutes (2005), and on that basis remanded to the property appraiser for reconsideration of the assessment for 2005, and reassessment. We affirm this ruling.
The trial court also ruled, however, that the property appraiser properly considered all of the criteria set out in section 193.011, Florida Statutes (2006), and upheld the 2006 assessment. The taxpayer argues that this ruling was erroneous on various grounds. We agree only that the property appraiser failed to apply section 193.011(2), Florida Statutes (2006), properly, in that the property appraiser failed adequately to take into account “local or state land use regulation[s]” when using sale prices of “comparable” parcels that lacked the land use restrictions imposed on the golf course by a planned unit development order entered after a development of regional impact process.
Accordingly, we affirm the remand as to the 2005 tax assessment, but reverse the judgment approving the 2006 assessment, and remand with directions that the trial court remand the 2006 assessment, to the property appraiser for reassessment.
WOLF, BENTON, and BROWNING, JJ., concur.