IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE

Transcription

1 POINTE ORLANDO DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, a California general partnership, Plaintiff, IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR ORANGE COLINTY, FLORIDA CASENo. 20tT-CA-4318-O DIVISION: V; RICK SINGH, CFA, as Property Appraiser for Orange County; SCOTT RANDOLPH, as Tax Collector for Orange County; and LEON M. BIEGALSKI, as Executive Director ofthe Florida Department of Revenue, Defendants. CqMPLAINT Plaintiff, POINTE ORLANDO DEVELOPMENT COMPANY (*POINTE ORLANDO"), sues Defendants, RICK SINGH, CFA, as Properfy Appraiser for Orange County ("SINGH"), SCOTT RANDOLPH, as Tax Collector for Orange County, ("RANDOLPH"), and LEON M. BIEGALSKI, as Executive Director of the Florida Department of Revenue ('BIEGALSKI"), and states as follows: PARTIES. CLAIMS ANp JURILUlC,.Tlpfi 1. POINTE ORLANDO is a California general partnership, which is the owner in fee simple of that certain improved, commercial real property situated in Orange County, Florida, having a street address of 9101 International Drive, Orlando, Florida and a Parcel ID No. for ad valorem taxation purposes of 36-? ("Property"). POINTE ORLANDO operates the Property as a cofirmercial complex, renting same intending to make a profit.

2 Pointe Orlando v. Singh, et al Page 2 of 5 2. SINGII is the Orange County, Florida Property Appraiser and is a proper party to this action pursuant to $ (2), Fla. Stat. 3. RANDOLPH is the Orange County, Florida Tax Collector and in such capacity is the official charged with collectrng ad valorern taxes on properties situated in Orange County, Florida, including the Property, and is a proper party to this action pursuant to $ (3), Fla. Stat, 4. BIEGALSKI is the Executive Director of the Florida Deparknent of Revenue and is a proper party defendant to this action pursuant to $ (5), Fla. Stat. 5. This is an original proceeding contesting ad valorem taxation of the Property pursuantto Ch. 194, Part II, Fla. Stat., following denial of POINTE ORLANDO'S Petition to the Orange County Value Adjustment Board ("VAB") for adjustment of the ad volorem tax assessment of the Property for tax year The Court has jurisdiction of the parties and the cause. 7, Venue is proper in this Court. 8. AIl conditions precedent to the initiation and maintenance of this action have occured, have been performed or have been waived or excused. GENEBAL ALIEGAJIqNq 9. On or about Novernber 1,2016, SINGH assessed the 'Just value" of the Property pursuant to Ch, 193, Fla-.lrar. SINGH assessed the Property at a purported just value of Eighty- One Miltion Three Hundred Eighty Thousand Eight Hundred Eighty-Six Dollars ($81,380,886,00) C'20 I 6 Assessment'). 10, A copy of RANDOLPH's 2016 tax bill for the Property rendered to POINTE ORLANDO on or about November 1,2016 is attached hereto as Exhibit "A".

3 Pointe Orlando v. Singh, et al. Page 3 of5 11. SINGH's 2016 Assessment failed to properly consider the statutory factors enumerated in g (l) * {8), Fla.,Sfaf,, in determining the 2016 Assessment. SINGH also failed to consider either a market or cost based approach to the value of the Property, beyond the income-based approach to its value. SINGH's errors and omissions in arriving at the 2016 Assessment include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: a. SINGH overstated the "present cash value" of the Property pursuant to $ (l), Fla. Stat.; b. SINGH miscalculated the rentable or leasable area of the Property and the individual units within the Property; c. SINGH overestimated the rental value per square foot of leasable area within each of the units within the Property; d. SINGH underestimated the expenses of maintenance and upkeep for the Property; and e. SINGH ignored or failed to assign suflicient weight to factors concerning the surounding neighborhood. POINTE ORLANDO carmot maintain its rents at cunent or competitive levels and absorb the tax increases which RANDOLPH's 20 I 6 Assessment represent. 12. The effect of the erors and omissions of SINGH set forth above constitute a failure properly to analyze the factors set forth in $ l, Flq. Stat., and thus a denial of POINTE ORLANDO's rights under the due process clause and just valuation clause of the Florida Constitution as applied to POINTE ORLANDO. Art. I, $9 and Art. VII, $4, Fla. Const., respectively. The 2016 Assessment accordingly exoeeds lhc [rue ^[air urarkct or just value of thc Propety.

4 Pointe Orlando v. Singh, et al Page 4 of5 13. Prior to initiation of this action, on or about November 27,2016, POINTE ORLANDO paid to RANDOLPH the ad valorem taxes as determined by the 2016 Assessment, as required by gl94,l7l(3), Fla. Stat., in full as assessed, in the amount of One Million One Hundred Thirty-Eight Thousand Eight Hundred Three Dollars and Seventy Cents ($1,138,803.70), as evidenced by the receipt for same attached hereto as Exhibit "A". Such payment was without prejudice to POINTE ORLANDO'S rights asserted herein and not an admission the tax was due pursuant to $194'171(4), Fla' Stat. pount I (Tax Co4test) pointe ORLANDO sues SINGH, RANDOLPH, and BIEGALSKI, pursuant to Ch. 194, Fla. Stat, contesting the tax assessed by and paid to them respectively, seeking declaratory, monetary and all other appropriate relief, adopts and re-alleges paragraphs I through 13 of its as though fully set forth herein, and states further as foliows: 14, For the reasons alleged above, SINGH rendered the 2015 Assessment on the Property at a level whioh grossly overstates its actual just or fair market value. 15. As a condition precedent to suit and required by law, POINTE ORLANDO paid the taxes levied based upon the 2016 Assessment to RANDOLPH' 16. POINTE ORLANDO is entitled to refund of such portion of the taxes paid as is determined excessive on the basis of the erroneous calculation by SINGH of the 2016 Assessment. WHEREFORE, PIAiNtiff, POINTE ORLANDO DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, respectfirlly requests a Judgment of this Court against Defendant, RICK SINGH, CFA, as Property Appraiser for Orange County, declaring the 2016 Assessment unlawful pursuant to Art'

5 Pointe Orlando v. Singh, et a!. Page 5 of 5 I, $9 and Art. VII, $4, Fla. Const. and Ch. 193, Fla. sral., against Defendant, scott RANDOLPH, as Tax Collector for Orange County, for money damages and directing RANDOLPH refund to POINTE ORLANDO such portion of the 2016 taxes previously paid as are warranted by virtue of the excessiveness of the 2016 Assessment, and against Defendant, LEON M. BTEGALSKI, as Executive Director of the Florida Departrnent of Revenue, declaring the 2016 Assessment unlawful pusuant to Art, i, $9 and Art. VII, $4, Fla. Const. as applied to POINTE ORLANDO, and for such monetary and further relief as may be necessary and appropriate to provide POINTE ORLANDO complete relief against BIEGALSKI, together with an award of its taxable costs of this action and any such other relief as the Court Dated this th day of May,20l7. SCOTT R. ROST Florida Bar No.l South Milhausen, P.A Legion Place, Suite 1200 Orlando, Florida sro st[d. southm i I h ausen. co m Telephone Facsimile Counselfor Plaintiff