WAYNE JOHANSSON

v.

MIAMI-DADE COUNTY VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD, ET AL.

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed December 13, 2023. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D23-1165 Lower Tribunal No. 23-3 AP ________________

Wayne Johansson, Petitioner,

vs.

Miami-Dade County Value Adjustment Board, et al., Respondents.

On Petition for Writ of Certiorari from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Appellate Division, Daryl E. Trawick, Judge.

Wayne Johansson, in proper person.

Millares Law Firm, P.A., and Rafael E. Millares, for respondent Miami- Dade County Value Adjustment Board; Geraldine Bonzon-Keenan, Miami- Dade County Attorney, and Ryan Carlin, Assistant County Attorney, for respondent Pedro J. Garcia, as Miami-Dade County Property Appraiser.

Before FERNANDEZ, SCALES and BOKOR, JJ.

SCALES, J.

I.

Relevant Background On January³, 2023, the VAB Special Magistrate made a recommendation to the VAB pertaining to the 2022 assessed value of certain real property Johansson owns in Miami-Dade County. A month later, Johansson filed his Petition in the appellate division challenging the Special Magistrate’s recommendation.

1 Part I of chapter 194 of the Florida Statutes, titled “Administrative Review,” provides, inter alia, the statutory mechanism for taxpayers to administratively challenge a property tax assessment. The statutory scheme provides for the creation of value adjustment boards in each Florida county, authorizes special magistrates in large counties, and outlines how proceedings before value adjustment boards and special magistrates are to be conducted.

II.

Analysis³

2 The appellate division’s decision also noted that, pursuant to section 194.171 of the Florida Statutes, the VAB was not a proper party to a legal proceeding challenging a tax assessment and, as this Court had held in a prior opinion, was immune from the claims that had been alleged in that lawsuit, i.e., a verified complaint filed in circuit court by Johansson related to the 2019 tax year. See Johansson v. Miami-Dade Cnty. Value Adjustment Bd., 346 So. 3d 90, 92 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022) (“Johansson-I”). In Johansson-I, we affirmed the trial court’s dismissal, with prejudice, of Johansson’s twelvecount, pro se lawsuit against the VAB. Johansson’s lawsuit (seeking injunctive and mandamus relief, as well as general and punitive damages against the VAB) claimed, generally, that, by rendering a just valuation that differed from the valuation Johansson desired, the VAB and its Special Magistrate had committed various constitutional due process violations. Id. at 92. We concluded that, because the VAB’s determination of the valuation of Johansson’s property was a judicial act within the VAB’s jurisdiction, the VAB and its Special Magistrate enjoyed quasi-judicial immunity for the valuation determination. Id. at 94. Importantly for the instant case, we also concluded that, under the relevant statutory scheme, a taxpayer’s exclusive legal remedy to challenge a property valuation was via an original proceeding against the property appraiser. Id. at 92 n.2.

3 An appellate court’s second-tier certiorari review is limited to whether the circuit court afforded due process and applied the correct law. Fla. Int’l Univ. v. Ramos, 335 So. 3d 1221, 1224 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021).

Rule 9.030(c)(2) reads, in its entirety, as follows: “Certiorari jurisdiction. The certiorari jurisdiction of circuit courts may be sought to review nonfinal orders of lower tribunals other than that prescribed by rule 9.130.” Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(c)(2) (footnote omitted).

Rule 9.020(e) reads, in its entirety, as follows: “Lower Tribunal. The court, agency, officer, board, commission, judge of compensation claims or body who order is to be reviewed.” Fla. R. App. P. 9.020(e).

We read the plain language of these procedural rules as authorizing a circuit court’s exercise of certiorari jurisdiction to review non-final orders of a tribunal only if the circuit court has reviewing authority over proceedings

4 We are aware that the heading of section 194.036 (which reads, “Appeals”) and the section’s prefatory language (“Appeals of the decisions of the board shall be as follows:”) are misleading in this regard. But section 194.036(3) plainly states that the circuit court proceeding in which the taxpayer contests a tax assessment is “de novo.” And, as we noted in Johansson-I, “[a] VAB decision is not ‘appealable’ in the formal sense of an appeal as a review proceeding. . . . ‘While this process is referred to as an ‘appeal’ of the board’s decision, actions brought in the circuit court pursuant to section 194.032, now section 194.036, are original actions, not appeals.’ Crapo, 278 So. 3d at 122 (quoting Williams v. Law, 368 So. 2d 1285 (Fla. 1979)).” Johansson- I, 346 So. 3d at 92 n.2.