L This is an action brought pursuant to Sections and (2), Florida Statutes'

Transcription

1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE I ITH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA GENER AL JURISDICTION DIVIS ION CASENO: SETAI HOTEL ACQUIS[ION' LLC, a Delaware corporation authorized to do business in FL, Setai l4l 5 LLC, a Florida coryoration authorized to do business in FL, NAKASH HOLDING, LLC' a Delaware corporation authorized to do business in FL, NAKASH MIAMI CONDO INVEST LLC, A Florida corporation authorized to do business in FL vs. Plaintiffs. 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, COMPLAINT Defendants. plaintiff SETAI HoTEL ACQUISITION, LLc ("setal HoTEL") a Delaware corporation authorized to do business in FL, SETAI l4l5 LLC. ("SETAI 1415") a Florida corporation authorized to do business in FL, NAKASH HOLDING LLC, ("NAKASH HOLDINGG") a Delaware corporation authorized to do business in FL, and NAKASH MIAMI CONDO INVEST LLC,(,NAKASH MlAMl") a Florida corporation authorized to do business in FL, (all PlaintifPs together refened to as "NAKASH SETAI HOTEL OWNERS"), sue PEDRO J. GARCIA as Property Appraiser of Miami Dade Counry, Florida C'GARCIA"), MARCUS SAIZ DE LA MORA, as Tax Collector of Miami-Dade County, Florida (*SAIZ"), LEON M' BIEGALSKI, as Executive Direcror, State of Florida, Department of Revenue ('BIEGALSKI'), and alleges: L This is an action brought pursuant to Sections and (2), Florida Statutes' to contesr the 2016 ad valorem tax assessments tevied by Defendant GARCIA on the real property \rl92.l6tt.l. 100!larv rrctive' 1688 rncridianlsaai HotclComplainl ' sotfli hotcl doux

2 owned by NAKASH SETAI HOTEL OWNERS as of January I 2016 consisting of: 86 of 88 hotel units; a utilities unit, a hotel unit consisting of common areas, and a commercial unit; all located at the Setai Hotel, 2001 Collins Avenue, Mian:i Beach FL with tax parcel #s , x2530,x 2540, attd x0010 thru x0880 excluding x0080 and x0210 (in the aggregate, "SUBJECT property"). Attached Exhibit "A" notes which tax parcels are owned by which Plaintift'. Z. plaintiffs SETAI HOTEL and NAKASH HOLDINGS are Delaware for profit corporations authorized to do business in Florida and to bring this action, Plaintitls SETAI l4l5 and NAKASH MIAMI are Florida for profit corporations authorized to do business in Florida and to bring this action. 3. Defendants, GARCIA, as Property Appraiser of Miami Dade County, Florida, SAZ, as Tax Collecror of Miami Dade County. Florida and BIECALSKI, as Executive Drector, State of Florida, Department of Revenue, are parties to this suit pursuant to Section , Florida Starutes. 4. Jurisdiction and venue are placed in this Court by Section , Florida Statutes, and article V. sections 5 and 20 of the Constitution of the State of Florida. 5. ln accordance with Section (3), Florida Slatutes, NAKASH SETAI HOTEL OWNERS has tendered to the Tax ColleOor not less than the amount of the tax, which it admits in good faith lo owe as a predicate to filing this action. A copy of Defendant SAIZ's paid receipts for the 2016 ad valorem tax year is attached as "Exhibit A"' 6, This acrion is brought timely pursuart to Section l94.l7l(2), Florida Statutes. 7. Defendant, GARCIA assessed the subject PROPERTY at a lolal valuation figure of $93,189,844 as of January '1, NAKASH SETAI HOTEL OWNERS timely flled an administrative appeal petition with the Value Adjusfment Board (.'VAB") which did not reduce the assessments on the SUBJECT PROPERTY to Just Value as required by Florida Statutes. til92.l68.l.100',lart aclive\1688 rneridianisetai l{olel\,qnrlplair)l - sctai holel.drcx,,

3 9. Def'endant GARCIA should have determined that the just value of the SUBJECT PROPERTY lor purposes of the ad valorem tax assessment as of January 1, 2A16 TO be no more than $70,000,000. The 2016 ad valorem tax assessment of the SUBJECT PROPERW as determined by GARCIA is illegal and void because fte assessment exceeds the constitutional and sratutory standards for just valuation adopted by the State of Florida. 10. Defendant GARCIA did not observe the essential requirements of law in determining rhe assessed valuation of the SUBJECT PROPERTY. As such. the assessment is in exc ss ofjust value and cannot be sustained under applicable Florida Statutes (including Section 194'301) Department of Revenue Rules, the Florida Constitution and Florida Court decisions' The reasons include but are not limited to: a. Defendant CARCIA assessment of the SUBJECT PROPERTY failed to properly take inro consideration the statutory criteria of Section , Florida Statutes, which, in part' provides that in aniving at 'Just valuation", the Property Appraiser is required by Section 4' Art' VIl, of the Florida Constitution, to take into consideration: i. The present value of the SUBJ ECT PROPERTY as of January I, : ii. The highest and best use to which the subject PROPERTY could be expected to be put in the immediate future and the present use of the SUBJECT PROPERTY as of January l, Zo16; iii. The condition of rhe SUBJECT PROPERTY, including its physical condition, as ofjanuary I, 2016; iv. The income from the SUBJECT PROPERTY as of January l, 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 conditions present as ofjanuary l,2016. b. Def'endant GARCIA's assessmenl of the SUBJECT PROPERTY did not consider, and did not reflect that Plaintiff purchased the SUBJECT PROPERTY in varior'rs,it l.l00il0rvoctive\1688 meritlitn',setai tlotol"conrplninr ' sctai hotel'dmx -3-

4 tla' Case No. transactions as part of an assemblage both within and outside the building for less than the assessment. c. Defendant GARCIA' assessment of the SLIBJECT PROPERTY did not consider, and did not reflect that the consideration paid included the Abbey Hotel (# ' 0170) and tangible personal property not part of this lawsuit' d. Defendant GARCIA's assessment of the SLIBJECT PROPERTY did not consider, and did not reflect that rhe consideration paid included intangible value related to hotel operations including going concern value, the name, assembled workforce' etc' e. Defendant GARCIA',s assessment of the SUBJECT PROPERTY did not consider, and did not reflectthat the highest and best use in the immediate future of the SUBJECT property is as an operaring hotet and instead classified the tar parcels as residential units' f. Defendant GARCIA's assessment of the SUBJECT PROPERTY did not consider, and did not reflect rhat the ciry of Miami Beach required the building containing the SUBJECT property to be a replication of the original arclritectural design from the 1930's which is obsolete by modern standards including the lack of balconies on most units and no ocean views. g. Defendant GARCLA's assessment of tlre SUBJECT PROPERTY did not consider, and did not reflert reaent sale prices of individual condo units in a similar location with similar non-oceanfront views such as across the strea at 2000 Collins Avenue and instead utilized without proper adjustment individual sales in the relatively new oceanfront higlr-rise glass and batcony tower that is also parr of the same Associatiott' h. Defendant Garcia's assessment of rhe SUBJECT PROPERTY did not consider. and did not reflect a proper application of the income approach which would support to more than $70.000,000 given the above noted physical condition (few batconies, no ocean views) and market 'ril92.l68.l.t00"l8lvaclive',l6ee nrcritlian',sstni llotellcr>mflainl - sctf,i h(tlel d(xx conditions as ofthe assessrnent date- -4-

5 i. Defendant CARCIA' assessnrerrt of the SUBJECT PROPERTY exceeds just value and therefore violates article VII, section 4 of the Florida Constitution. j Defendant CARCIA's assessment of the SLTBJECT 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. k. Defendant GARCIA, in violation of the law. arbitrarily assessed the SUBJECT PROPERTY based on appraisal practices different fiorn the appraisal practices generally applied by GARCIA to comparable property within the same class arrd within Miami Dade County. I l. Based in part on all of the above, DEFENDANT GARCIA's assessment of the Subject Properry is not entitled to any presumption of correctness pursuant to Section ' Florida Starutes, Regardless. as to whether or not GARCIA's assessment is entitled to a presumption of correctness, Plaintifl has met its burden of proof in support of reducing the assessment on the SLI-BJECT PROPERTY lor 20l6to no more than $70, ' WHEREFORE, Ptaintifls NAKASH SETAI HOTEL OWNERS request that this Court grant the following relief; A. That this Court takejurisdiction of the subject matter and the parues hereto: B. That this Court declare the ad valorem tax assessment of the SUBJECT PROPERTY determined by the Detbndant GARCIA, for the 7016 ad valorem t&x year, to be non' sustainable under applicable Florida Statutes and otjrer laws and is therefore, null and void; C. That this Court establishes the co,rect value of the SUBJECT PROPERTY for 2Ol6 ad valorem t x purposes at no more than $70,000'000; D. That this Court order Defendant, SAIZ, to refund to the Plaintiffs the difference between the taxes paid by them and the amount due under the assessment established by this Court; Florida Statutes. E. That this Court assess costs in bringing this action purcuant to Section ',,l92.l68.l.l00tlarvocliver.l688 rneridian'rseloi flotelrconrplainl - rtetai hotel,d<xx -5-

6 F.ThatthisCourtgrantanysuchfurtherreliefasitdeemsappropriate' DESIGNATION OF EMATL ADDRESSES Pursuant to Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.516, undersigned counsel hereby designates hivher primary and secondary addresses for purposes of service as follows: Primary entail address: Secondary address: l.qgpl ass!.tfi)gapp-qllauqsrln D ATE D this I I d' day of August 20 I 7 LAW OFFICES OF GARY APPEL' P,A Meridian Avenue Suite 723 Miami Beach. FL By: /s/garv A, APPeJ - GARY A. APPEL Florida Bar No' office gappel@gappellarv.com r I 92. I 68. L I o0'.larv aclivc, I (r88 nreritlian',selni tlotel\conrplain t - selaj holel,docx -6-