PROPERTY APPRAISAL ADJUSTMENT BOARD OF SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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.
The Property Appraisal Adjustment Board of Sarasota County challenged the Department of Revenue's determination that the Board had consistently violated the intent of property tax law. The court dismissed the petition, holding that the Department's determination of probable cause is not final agency action subject to judicial review because it has no bearing on the outcome of any subsequent litigation.
The Department of Revenue's determination of probable cause is not final agency action subject to judicial review because it is merely one of several alternative conditions precedent to the property appraiser's right to appeal to circuit court, and it has no bearing on the outcome of any subsequent litigation where the burden of proof remains on the property appraiser in a de novo proceeding.
[1] A determination by the Department of Revenue that a Property Appraisal Adjustment Board has consistently and continuously violated the intent of the law is a condition pr…
[2] The Department of Revenue's determination of probable cause for a property appraiser to appeal a Property Appraisal Adjustment Board decision does not affect the outcome…
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“the determination of probable cause can have no bearing upon the outcome of the litigation. Thus, even though the action of the Department of Revenue is final in the sense that the Department will have nothing further to do with the matter, it is not final agency action which has adversely affected the Adjustment Board.”
Establishes the core holding that the Department's determination is not reviewable final agency action because it does not affect litigation outcomes
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Property Appraiser of Sarasota County asserted a claim under Florida Statutes Section 194.032(6)(a)3, leading the Department of Revenue to determi…
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 De Novo Proceeding cases and more on FLexlaw
GRIMES, Judge.
Upon the assertion of the Sarasota County Property Appraiser pursuant to Section 194.032(6)(a)3, Florida Statutes (Supp.1976), the Department of Revenue determined that by virtue of certain of its decisions the Property Appraisal Adjustment Board of Sarasota County had consistently and continuously violated the intent of the law. The Adjustment Board has filed in this court a petition to review this determination, and the Department of Revenue has filed a motion to dismiss.
The obtaining of a determination by the Department of Revenue that “there exists a consistent and continuous violation of the intent of the law or administrative rules by the Property Appraisal Adjustment Board in its decisions” is one of several alternative statutory conditions precedent which must exist before a property appraiser may appeal a decision of the Property Appraisal Adjustment Board to the circuit court. In essence, by virtue of its general supervision over property assessments, the Department of Revenue is charged with deciding whether the property appraiser has probable cause to go to court. Yet, even when a determination of probable cause has been made, the decision of whether to appeal to the court remains within the discretion of the property appraiser. In the event the matter goes to court, the proceeding is de novo, and the burden of proof is on the property appraiser.
Section 194.-032(6)(c), Florida Statutes (Supp.1976). The determination of probable cause can have no bearing upon the outcome of the litigation.
Thus, even though the action of the Department of Revenue is final in the sense that the Department will have nothing further to do with the matter, it is not final agency action which has adversely affected the Adjustment Board.
Section 120.-68, Florida Statutes (1975). We do not pass on the question of whether a determination adverse to the property appraiser would be final agency action, because under those circumstances the property appraiser would be without further recourse.
The petition for review is hereby dismissed.
BOARDMAN, C. J., and McNULTY, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ervin A. Higgs v. Prop. Appraisal Adjustment Bd. OF Monroe Cnty., 411 So. 2d 307 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…exists a consistent and continuous violation of the intent of the law or administrative rules by the Property Appraisal Adjustment Board in its decisions,” see Property Appraisal Adjustment Board of Sarasota County v. Florida Department of Revenue, 349 So. 2d 804 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977), the Property Appraiser may bring suit to enjoin such future violations and to “restore the tax roll to its just value in such amount as determined by judicial proceeding.” All statutory predicates having been satisfied, the Appr…
-
Mikos v. Prop. Appraisal Adjustment Bd. OF Sarasota Cnty., 365 So. 2d 757 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)…n or otherwise adversely affect the decisions of the Property Appraisal Adjustment Board. It is, in this sense, a true probable cause determination. See, e. g., Property Appraisal Adjustment Board of Sarasota County v. Florida Department of Revenue, 349 So. 2d 804 (Fla.2d DCA 1977). Based solely upon the record of Property Appraisal Adjustment Board proceedings the DOR determines whether there is good cause for the conclusion of the Property Appraiser that the Property Appraisal Adjustment Board has consisten…
-
Johansson v. Miami-Dade Cnty. Value Adjustment Bd., 346 So. 3d 90 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022)…sts a consistent and continuous violation of the intent of the law or administrative rules by the Property Appraisal Adjustment Board in its decisions,” see Property Appraisal Adjustment Board of Sarasota County v. Florida Department of Revenue, 349 So. 2d 804 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977), the Property Appraiser may bring suit to enjoin such future violations and to “restore the tax roll to its just value in such amount as determined by judicial proceeding.” (Emphasis added). The Higgs opinion does not suppor…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence