L This is an action brurght pursuant to Sections l94.l7l and (2), Florida Statutes,

Transcription

1 Filing # 6A E-Filed 08/l li20l 7 07:42:A6 PM IN TFIE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE I I TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MIAMI.DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA GENERAL J URISD ICTION DIVI SION CASE NO: MIAMI BEACH RESORT OWNER, LLC, A Florida Corporation authorized to do business in FIorida, vs. Plaintiff, PEDRO J. GARCIA, as Property Appraiser of Miami-Dade County, Florida, MARCUS SAIZ DE LA MORA as Tax Collector of Miami-Dade County, Florida and LEON M. BIEGALSKI, Executive Director, State of Florida. Department of Revenue, e olvrplaint Def'endants. plaintiff MLAMI BEACH RESORT OWNER, LLC C'RESORT') a Florida corporation authorized to do business in FL. sues PEDRO J. GARCIA as Property Appraiser of Miami Dade County, Florida C'GARCIA"). MARCUS SAIZ, as Tax Collector of Miarni-Dade County, Florida ("SAZ"), LEON M. BIEGALSKI, as Executive Director, State of Florida, Departmet:t of Revenue ("BIEGA LSKI'), and all eges : L This is an action brurght pursuant to Sections l94.l7l and (2), Florida Statutes, to contest the 2016 ad valorem ta,\ assessments levied by Defendant CARCIA on the real property owned by RESORT as of January I known as the Miami Beach Resort Collins Avenue, Miami Beach FL, tax parcel # ('SUBJECT PROPERTY"). 2. Plaintiff RESORT is a for profit corporation authodzed to do business in Florida and to bring this action. 3, Defendants, GARCIA,, as Property Appraiser of Miami Dade County, Florid4 SAIZ, as Tax Collector of Miami Dade County. Florida and BIEGALSKI, as Executive Director, State of :' \le$ aolive\l6ta!a ntcridian\tr,{irrni Il}aoh Rosofllclollplaint - }liarni Bcach Rcstrl.doox

2 Florida, Department of Revenue, are parties to this suit pursuant to Section , Florida Statutes. 4. Jurisdiction and venue are ptaced in this Court by Section , Florida Statutes, and article V. sections 5 and 20 of the Constitution of the State of Florida. 5. In accordance with Section lg4.l7l(3), Florida Statutes, RESORT has tendered to the Tax Cotlector not less than the amount of the tax, which it admits in good faith to owe as a predicate to filing this aaion. A copy of Defendant SAZ's paid receipt for the 2016 ad valorem tax year is attached as "Exhibit A". 6. This action is brought timely pursuant to Section l94.17l(2). Florida Stanrtes- 7. Defendant, GARCIA assessed the SUBJECT PROPERTY at a total valuation figure of $91.200,860 as ofjanuary 1, RESORT timely filed an administrative appeal petition with the Value Adjustment Board ("VAB-) which did not reduce the assessment on the SUBJECT PROPERTY to Just Value as required by Florida Statutes. g. Defendant GARCIA should haye determined that the just value of the SUBJECT PROPERTY for purposes of the ad valorem tal( assessment as of January I, 2016 to be no more than $ The 2016 ad valorem t&\ assessment of the SUBJECT PROPERTY as determined by GARCIA is illegal and void because the assessment exceeds the constinrtional and staoitory standards for just valuation adopted by the State of Florida. t0. Defendant GARCIA did not observe the essential requirements of Iaw in determining the assessed valuarion of the SUBJECT PROPERTY. As such, the assessment is in excess ofjust value and cannot be sustained under applicable Florida Statutes (including Section ) Department of Revenue Rules, the Florida Constitution and Florida Court deoisions. The reasons include but are not limited to: a. Def'endant GARCIA assessment of the SUBJECT PROPERTY failed to properly take into consideration the statutory criteria of Section , Florida Statutes, which, in part, 1\l92.l68.l.t00rlawacliveil688 nreridianllrlintni ljerrch llesrrt\courploirrt - \linnri Be5ch R!'srr1.d()cx a

3 provides that in arriving at'just valuation", the Property Appraiser is required by Section 4, Att. VIl, of the Florida Constitution, to take into consideration: i. The present value of the SUBJECT PROPERTY as of January l, 2016; ii. The highest and best use to which the SUBJECT PROPERTY could be expected to be put in the immediate lirture and the present use of the SUBJECT PROPERTY as of January l,2016; condition, as of January I, 2016; iii. The condition of the SUBJECT PROPERTY, including its physical iv. The income from the SUBJECT PROPERTY as of January 1, 2016: and v. The net proceeds of the sale of the SUBJECT PROPERTY, as received by the seller, after deduction of all reasonable fees and costs of the sale under the condltions present as ofjanuary l, b. Defendant GARCIA's assessment of the SUBJECT PROPERTY did not consider, and did not reflect that the consideration paid included intangible value related to hotel operations including going concern value, the name, assembled workforce. etc. c. Defendant GARCIA's assessment of the SUBJECT PROPERTY did no1 consider, and did not reflect that the SUBJECT PROEPRTY is a designated contributing structure within the local City of Miami Beach historic district. This places design changes and demolition restrictions on the Subject Property, a 55 year old building. d. Defendant GARCIA's assessment of the SUBJECT PROPERTY did not consider, and did not reflect the obsolescence of the early 1960's design particularly the lack of balconies from virnrally all the rooms. e. Defendant GARCIA's assessment of the SUBJECT PROPERTY did not consider, and did not reflect the physical condition of the SUBJECT PROPERTY in comparison with more recent hotel renovations and new construclion such as 4835 Collins Avenue. I 92.t 68. t.100\law tctive\ 1688 rneridian',nliauri ljeach Resorl',Cotuplaint - \'liarui Beach Resrrt.docr -3-

4 Case No, fl Defendant GARCIA's assessment of the SUBJECT PROPERTY is believed to have included an increased value for "excess land". Given the location of the building on the land, historic designation and other govemment zoning restrictions, there is no excess land for ad valorem ta,x value purposes. g Defendant Garcia's assessment of the SUBJECT PROPERTY did not consider, and did not reflect a proper application of the income approach which would suppofi to more than $73,000,000 given the above noted physical condition (few balconies, no ocean views) and market conditions as of the assessment date. h. Defendant GARCIA' assessment of the SUBJECT PROPERTY exceeds just value and therefore violates article WI, section 4 of the Florida Constitution. i. Defendant CARCIA's assessrnent of the SUBJECT PROPERTY violates the equal protection clause of the state and federal constitutions because the assessment of the Subject property is not equal and uniform compared to the assessments of other properties in the same class within Miami Dade County. j Defendant GARCIA, in violation of the law, arbitrarily assessed the SUBJECT PROPERTY based on appraisal practices different liom the appraisal practices generally applied by CARCIA to comparable property within the same class and within Miami Dade County. I 1. Based in part on all of the above, DEFENDANT GARCIA'S assessment of the Subject Property is not entitled to any presumption of correctness pursuanl to Section , Florida Statutes, Regardless, as to whether or not GARCIA's assessment is entitled to a presumption of correctness, Plaintiff has met its burden of proof in support of reducing the assessment on the SUBJECT PROPERTY for 20l6 to no more than $73, WHEREFORE, Plaintitf MIAMI BEACH RESORT OWNER, LLC requests that this Coutt grant the following relief: A. That this Court takes jurisdiction of the subject matter and the parties hereto; r I. l0orlarv acliveil fi88 ureritlian',lr'{ianr j Bach Revrl\Corrr plain t - \f inmi lleach Resrrl.docr -4-

5 B. That this Court declare the ad valorem tax assessment of the SUBJECT PROPERTY determined by the Det'endant GARCIA, for the 2016 ad valorem tax year, to be nonsustainable under applicable Florida Statutes and other laws and is therefore, null and void; C. That this Coun establishes the conect value of the SUBJECT PROPERTY for 2016 ad valorem tex purpose{ at no more than $73,000,000: D. That this Courr order Defendant, SAIZ, to refund to the Plaintiffs the difference between the raxes paid by them and the amount due under the assessment established by this Court; E. That this Court assess costs in bringing this action pursuant to Section Florida Statutes. F. That this Court grant any such further relief as it deems appropriate. DESICNANON OF ADDRESSES Pursuant to Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.516, undersigned counsel hereby designates his/her primary and secondary addresses for purposes of service as follows: Primary address: Secondary address: legal DATED this I lrr' day of August LAW OFFICES OF GARY APPEL. P A 1688 Meridian Avenue Suire 723 Miami Beach, FL Bv: lslgaru A. Aooel GARYA APPEL Florida Bar No ofI ce gappel@gappellaw.com I L 100 Jas active'l (r8fl nreridinri.lr.lianu Belch Rcsrrt\Corrrplaint. \{inmi [],xch Rcsort.tltrcs -5-