Pier House Joint Venture v. Higgs

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Pier House Joint Venture v. Higgs

555 So. 2d 899, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 88, 1990 WL 954

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 9, 1990

DocketNo. 89-1263

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 555 So. 2d 899 (Pier House Joint Venture v. Higgs) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Pier House Joint Venture v. Higgs, 555 So. 2d 899, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 88, 1990 WL 954 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the property owner Pier House Joint Venture from an adverse final judgment entered after a non-jury trial in an action instituted below challenging the Monroe County Property Appraiser Erwin Higgs’ assessment of the Pier House Inn and Beach Club in Key West, Florida. We reject the property owner’s points on appeal and affirm, thereby rendering moot the property assessor’s cross appeal.

First, we conclude that the property owner failed to establish below either (a) that the property appraiser’s assessment herein was not supported by a reasonable hypothesis, or (b) that the property appraiser failed to consider all of the statutory criteria established by Section 193.011, Florida Statutes (1987). The property owner’s attack on the property appraiser’s method of calculating the assessment based on the income approach and of determining valuation based on the cost approach falls far short of overcoming the presumptive validity of the property appraisal herein. Blake v. Xerox Corp., 447 So.2d 1348 (Fla.1984); Daniel v. Canterbury Towers, Inc., 462 So.2d 497 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Bystrom v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc’y of U.S., 416 So.2d 1133 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), rev. denied, 429 So.2d 5 (Fla.1983).

Second, we conclude that the trial court did not commit reversible error with respect to the alleged exclusion of certain financial information relative to the 1986 assessment. The trial court, in fact, admitted the data in evidence and only later indicated that it would consider the property appraiser’s objection thereto; at no time, however, did the trial court exclude this data from evidence. In any event, the data was inadmissible because the property owner failed to reveal same in a timely fashion upon request of the property appraiser. Palm Corp. v. Homer, 261 So.2d 822, 823 (Fla.1972).

The final judgment under review is therefore, in all respects,

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the property owner Pier House Joint Venture from an adverse final judgment entered after a non-jury trial in an action instituted below challenging the Monroe County Property Appraiser Erwin Higgs’ assessment of the Pier House Inn and Beach Club in Key West, Florida. We reject the property owner’s points on appeal and affirm, thereby rendering moot the property assessor’s cross appeal.

First, we conclude that the property owner failed to establish below either (a) that the property appraiser’s assessment herein was not supported by a reasonable hypothesis, or (b) that the property appraiser failed to consider all of the statutory criteria established by Section 193.011, Florida Statutes (1987). The property owner’s attack on the property appraiser’s method of calculating the assessment based on the income approach and of determining valuation based on the cost approach falls far short of overcoming the presumptive validity of the property appraisal herein. Blake v. Xerox Corp., 447 So.2d 1348 (Fla.1984); Daniel v. Canterbury Towers, Inc., 462 So.2d 497 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Bystrom v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc’y of U.S., 416 So.2d 1133 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), rev. denied, 429 So.2d 5 (Fla.1983).

Second, we conclude that the trial court did not commit reversible error with respect to the alleged exclusion of certain financial information relative to the 1986 assessment. The trial court, in fact, admitted the data in evidence and only later indicated that it would consider the property appraiser’s objection thereto; at no time, however, did the trial court exclude this data from evidence. In any event, the data was inadmissible because the property owner failed to reveal same in a timely fashion upon request of the property appraiser. Palm Corp. v. Homer, 261 So.2d 822, 823 (Fla.1972).

The final judgment under review is therefore, in all respects,

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

555 So. 2d 899, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 88, 1990 WL 954, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pier-house-joint-venture-v-higgs-fladistctapp-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack