PALM BEACH MALL, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,

v.

THE CITY OF WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA, ET AL., APPELLEES. (TWO CASES); PALM BEACH MALL, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT, V. JACK DEAN, COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR OF PALM BEACH COUNTY ET AL., APPELLEES

PER CURIAM.

These are consolidated appeals from a final judgment fixing ad valorem tax valuation on the property of the appellant for the years 1968 and 1969. The trial court found the following values for City and County taxes: 1968, valuation of 15.5-mil-lion dollars for City tax purposes; 1969, valuation-for City tax purposes 15.1-million dollars; and 1969, valuation for County tax purposes 15.1-million dollars.

From a review and consideration of the record before this court we are of the opinion that the tax values found by the trial court are not supported by competent substantial evidence. As the trial court observed, the City conceded that its assessed value of $19,752,400.00 for 1968, and $20,000,200.00 for 1969 were excessive and were not supported by evidence at the trial.1 The tax value determined by the *57lower court was based exclusively on the testimony of defendant’s appraiser.2 The various approaches utilized by the defendant’s appraiser in arriving at certain valuations, i. e., market data approach and an income approach, was premised upon a consideration of comparable sales and an analysis of case studies involving shopping center valuations. In our opinion the premise relied upon by the appraiser was faulty inasmuch as there was a failure to reasonably relate the factors upon which the appraiser relied to the specific property in question. While the approaches utilized by the appraiser and relied upon by the court are conventional, the values ultimately determined were predicated upon consideration of erroneous factors.

Although the appellant, through his own appraisers, presented evidence that the value of the property for tax purposes for 1968 and 1969 was between 11-million and 11.4-million dollars, we are also of the opinion that such evidence does not support the appellant’s asserted value.

Accordingly and with due recognition of the complexities involved in the determination of tax values we must reverse the order appealed from and remand the same for new trial consistent herewith.

Reversed and remanded.

WALDEN and MAGER, JJ., concur.

REED, C. J., dissents, with opinion.

REED, Chief Judge

(dissenting).

The issue presented by this appeal is whether or not the trial court’s judgment is supported by competent substantial evidence of the just value of the Palm Beach Mall for ad valorem tax purposes for the years 1968 and 1969. The appellant, Palm Beach Mall, Inc., owns the mall. It claims that the trial court’s determinations were too high. The appellees, the City of West Palm Beach and the County of Palm Beach, claim that the determinations of the trial court equate with just value and are based on competent, substantial evidence.

The evidence relied on by the trial judge was the testimony and the written report of an appraiser who was presented as an expert witness on behalf of the city and county. The appraiser, Samuel F. Holden, used three approaches to value while considering all of the statutory criteria set out in § 193.011, F.S.1969, F.S.A. He used the cost approach, the market data approach, and the income approach. Each was developed in great detail by the testimony and supporting exhibits presented by Mr. Holden. On the basis of Holden’s testimony, the trial judge found the fair market value of the property in question to be $15,500,000.00 on January 1, 1968, and $15,100,000.00 on January 1, 1969. The latter finding, in effect, sustained the assessment placed on the property by the county tax assessor for the year 1969. If the eivdence presented by the defendants’ appraiser is competent substantial evidence of value, as I believe it to be, it follows that such evidence is competent substantial evidence which supports the trial court’s findings of value.

For the foregoing reasons, I think the judgment appealed from should be affirmed.