Palm Springs Mile Associates, Ltd. v. Robbins

43 Fla. Supp. 2d 158
CourtCircuit Court for the Judicial Circuits of Florida
DecidedMarch 6, 1989
DocketCase No. 87-27833 CA 22
StatusPublished

This text of 43 Fla. Supp. 2d 158 (Palm Springs Mile Associates, Ltd. v. Robbins) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Circuit Court for the Judicial Circuits of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Palm Springs Mile Associates, Ltd. v. Robbins, 43 Fla. Supp. 2d 158 (Fla. Super. Ct. 1989).

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

ROBERT P. KAYE, Circuit Judge.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR FINAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO COUNTERCLAIM

THIS CAUSE came before the Court on February 28, 1989 pursuant to notice on the Plaintiff’s motion for final summary judgment as to counterclaim, with respect to which motion the parties agreed that no [159]*159material facts were in dispute. Based on the following analysis, the motion is denied.

The taxpayer contends that § 194.171(2), Florida Statutes, is a statute of nonclaim which absolutely bars a property appraiser’s counterclaim if filed more than 60 days from the date a decision is rendered by the property appraisal adjustment board. The Property Appraiser responds that § 194.171(2) governs only the time for filing a taxpayer’s suit to contest an assessment, and that the time within which a Property Appraiser’s “appeal” may be brought is governed not by § 194.171(2), admittedly a statute of nonclaim, but by § 193.122(4), a statute of limitations. The Court concludes that if the filing of the Property Appraiser’s counterclaim is governed by a statute of limitations rather than by a statute of nonclaim, Allie v Ionata, 503 So.2d 1237 (Fla. 1987), provides the Property Appraiser with a plea in recoupment which may be used to obtain affirmative relief.

At the hearing, the Court reviewed the statutory scheme set fourth in Chapters 193 and 194 and the case law interpreting those statutes. In Bystrom v Florida Rock Industries, Inc., 502 So.2d 35, 36 (Fla. 3d DCA) rev. denied, 511 So.2d 29 (Fla. 1987), the Third District distinguished between the two aformentioned statutes, specifying that 193.122 governs the time within which the property appraiser files suit to seek review of a property appraisal adjustment board decision, while § 194.171(2) provides the time limitation within which “property owners” must file suit. The statutory scheme governing circuit court actions distinguishes between suits instituted by property owners and those instituted by property appraisers.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Allie v. Ionata
503 So. 2d 1237 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1987)
Bystrom v. Florida Rock Industries, Inc.
502 So. 2d 35 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1987)
Stewart v. City of Pineville
511 So. 2d 26 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1987)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
43 Fla. Supp. 2d 158, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/palm-springs-mile-associates-ltd-v-robbins-flacirct-1989.