Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

416 So. 2d 2

Muss v. Blake

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided May 25, 1982

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1982-05-25

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“[I]f the property appraiser shows that his assessment was made in substantial compliance with Section 193.011, [Florida Statutes,] then the burden shifts to the taxpayer, not merely to establish that the taxpayer's evidence as to valuation of the property is more convincing than the property appraiser's, but rather to overcome the property appraiser's assessment by excluding every reasonable hypothesis of a legal assessment.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Robbins v. Summit Apartments, Ltd.

Relies on Bystrom v. EQUITABLE LIFE ASSUR. SOC., ETC.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1982-05-25

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently December 2001

7 state decisions

40198219902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Stephen MUSS and the Estate of Alexander Muss, D/B/a Seacoast Towers North, Seacoast Towers Miami Beach, Inc., a New York Corporation, Appellants,
v.
A.H. BLAKE, Property Appraiser of Dade County, Florida, Harry L. Coe, Director of the Department of Revenue, Appellees.

No. 81-1445.

¶1District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 25, 1982.
Rehearing Denied July 19, 1982.

¶2*3 Lapidus & Stettin and Richard L. Lapidus, Miami, for appellants.

¶3Robert A. Ginsburg and Vicki J. Jay, Miami, for appellees.

¶4Before HUBBART, C.J., DANIEL S. PEARSON, J., and EZELL, BOYCE F., Jr. (Ret.) Associate Judge.

¶5PER CURIAM.

¶6We affirm the final judgment in favor of the appellees, which reinstated the Dade County Property Appraiser's assessment for the 1978 tax year on Seacoast Towers North, an apartment building owned by the appellant-taxpayers. The Property Appraiser, as the initiator of the de novo proceeding in the Circuit Court, see Section 194.032(6)(a)2, Florida Statutes (1977), satisfied his burden of showing that his preliminary assessment was made in substantial compliance with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes (1977); the taxpayers failed to satisfy their burden to overcome the presumptive correctness of the Property Appraiser's assessment by showing that there was no reasonable hypothesis to support the Property Appraiser's assessment; and the reduced valuation made by the Property Appraisal Adjustment Board, as the trial court impliedly and presciently determined, constituted no evidence in the de novo proceeding of the property's value. Bystrom v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States,416 So.2d 1133 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).

¶7Affirmed.

/416/so2d/2 · .json · Public domain