LESBAR ENTERPRISES, INC. v. CAREY BAKER, AS PROPERTY APPRAISER FOR LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA, DAVID JORDAN, AS TAX COLLECTOR FOR LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: February 16, 2024
• Docket: 23-2347
• Status: Published

Opinion

FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________

Case No. 5D23-2347 LT Case No. 2023-CA-000254-A _____________________________

LESBAR ENTERPRISES, INC.,

Appellant,

v.

CAREY BAKER, as Property Appraiser for Lake County, Florida, DAVID JORDAN, as Tax Collector for Lake County, Florida, et al.,

Appellees. _____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Lake County. Larry Metz, Judge.

Loren M. Vasquez, and Phillip S. Smith, and Daniel J. Kersey, of Mclin Burnsed, Leesburg, for Appellant.

Thomas J. Wilkes, Jr., and V. Nicholas Dancaescu, and Summer E. DeGel, of GrayRobinson, P.A., Orlando, for Carey Baker, as Property Appraiser for Lake County, Florida.

Mark A. Brionez, of Brionez + Brionez, P.A., Tavares, for David Jordan, Tax Collector for Lake County, Florida.

Randi E. Dincher, of Office of the Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Jim Zingale, Executive Director of the State of Florida Department of Revenue. February 16, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. See Orlando Bar Grp., LLC v. DeSantis, 339 So. 3d 487, 494 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022), review denied, No. SC22-881, 2022 WL 6979346 (Fla. Oct. 12, 2022), and cert. denied, 143 S. Ct. 980 (2023) (“Appellants correctly argue that plaintiffs typically have the ability to amend their complaint as a matter of right once prior to an answer being filed. See Boca Burger, Inc. v. Forum, 912 So. 2d 561, 567 (Fla. 2005). However, Appellants did not move for leave to amend, did not file a proposed amended complaint, and appealed rather than moving for rehearing on the dismissal being with prejudice.”); Vorbeck v. Betancourt, 107 So. 3d 1142, 1148 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (“It is now well settled that the rule of preservation applies to the improper dismissal of a complaint with prejudice.”).

EISNAUGLE, HARRIS and SOUD, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. _____________________________