Bystrom v. Hotelerama Associates, Ltd.

431 So. 2d 176, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 18996

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: April 5, 1983
• Docket: 82-1418
• Status: Published

Opinion

431 So.2d 176 (1983)

Frank BYSTROM, Etc., et al., Appellants,
v.
HOTELERAMA ASSOCIATES, LTD., Etc., Appellees.

No. 82-1418.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

April 5, 1983. Rehearing Denied May 31, 1983.

Robert A. Ginsberg, County Atty., and Thomas Goldstein, Asst. County Atty., for appellants.

Lapidus & Stettin and Richard Lapidus, Miami, for appellees.

Before BARKDULL, HUBBART and JORGENSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The final judgment under review is affirmed upon a holding that: (1) the presumed validity of the property assessment in this case was overcome below when it was shown, without dispute, that the defendant property appraiser [Frank Bystrom]: (a) failed to obtain, although available, the actual income data on the subject property from the plaintiff taxpayer [Hotelerama Associates, Ltd.] when utilizing the income approach to valuation herein [and did not by alternative methods make up for said deficiency]; and (b) thereby failed to substantially comply with Section 193.011(7), Florida Statutes (1981), in assessing the subject property in this case. Palm Corporation v. Homer, 261 So.2d 822 (Fla. 1972); Bystrom v. Equitable Life Assurance Society, 416 So.2d 1133, 1145-47 (Fla. 1982) (Pearson, Daniel, J. and Hubbart, C.J., concurring); (2) the plaintiff taxpayer [Hotelerama Associates, Ltd.] produced substantial, competent evidence below upon which a trier of fact could conclude, as it did, that by the greater weight of the evidence the just valuation of the subject property was $37,500,000, Bystrom v. Equitable Life Assurance Society, supra; see also Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So.2d 13, 16 (Fla. 1976); and (3) the remaining points urged herein are insufficient to upset the judgment appealed from.

Affirmed.