Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed May 4, 2022. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D21-2170 Lower Tribunal No. 21-2750 ________________
Wayne C. Johansson, Appellant,
vs.
Miami-Dade County Value Adjustment Board, Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Alan Fine, Judge.
Wayne C. Johansson, in proper person.
Millares Law Firm P.A., and Rafael E. Millares, for appellee.
Before LOGUE, HENDON and GORDO, JJ.
HENDON, J. Wayne C. Johansson (“Appellant”) appeals from a final order
dismissing with prejudice his complaint against the Miami-Dade County
Value Adjustment Board (“VAB”). 1 We affirm.
The Appellant asserted below that the VAB violated his procedural
due process rights in reviewing his 2019 and 2020 value petitions by failing
to adhere to the Florida Administrative Code. This was preceded by his
petitions before the VAB to challenge certain property appraisals. He
generally alleges the VAB denied his constitutional rights and ignored
various “government limitations,” as well as accused the VAB and its
members of civil conspiracy, misconduct, and constructive fraud.
Appellant’s Counts I-X of his amended complaint claim violations by the
VAB, VAB counsel, and the VAB special magistrates of certain Florida
statutes and the Florida Administrative Code. Counts XI-XII request a
permanent injunction and writ of mandamus against the VAB as well as
general damages, punitive damages, costs and fees.
The VAB moved to dismiss the Appellant’s amended complaint with
prejudice asserting the VAB is a quasi-judicial entity immune from suit.
1 Value adjustment boards are quasi-judicial state entities created by Florida statute to allow taxpayers to administratively challenge their tax assessments. §§194.011 through 194.036, Fla. Stat. (2022); Redford v. Department of Revenue, 478 So. 2d 808, 810 (Fla. 1985).
2 The VAB argued that section 194.181, Florida Statutes, provides that the
proper party to any case brought by a taxpayer to challenge property
assessment is the county property appraiser, and that the VAB could not
be a party to this lawsuit.
At the October 4, 2021, videoconference hearing on the VAB’s
motion to dismiss, the Appellant contended that he was not asserting a
property tax issue, but rather alleged that the VAB violated his
constitutional due process rights by not following certain Florida
Administrative Code procedures. When asked by the court if he could
provide examples of the alleged constitutional due process violations he
contended the VAB committed, the Appellant generally stated, 1) in 2019
the administrative hearing officer used false evidence to justify her decision
against the appellant; 2) in 2020, the hearing officer found that the office of
the property appraiser did not substantiate its evaluation. The Appellant
also accused the VAB of acting with legal malice by using administrative
review processes to render arbitrary and capricious final decisions against
him, and failed to support its final decision with required facts and
conclusions of law. The trial court heard the parties’ arguments and
ultimately granted the VAB’s motion to dismiss – not on the merits but
because the VAB, as a quasi-judicial entity, is immune from suit, even a
3 suit alleging a procedural due process violation. The trial court dismissed
the Appellant’s complaint with prejudice, explaining that there was no claim
the Appellant could bring that would allow him to sue the VAB.
We review de novo an order granting a motion to dismiss with
prejudice. Chakra 5, Inc. v. City of Miami Beach, 254 So. 3d 1056, 1061
(Fla. 3d DCA 2018).
Discussion
The VAB is not the proper party to a suit challenging property
assessment, or procedural or constitutional violations by the VAB. The
record shows that the Appellant originally challenged certain property
appraisals or assessments before the VAB. The VAB rendered a quasi-
judicial ruling pursuant to sections 194.036(2) and 194.171, Florida
Statutes. Dissatisfied with the process and outcome, the Appellant
“appealed” the VAB’s decision before the circuit court, 2 but as the record
shows, he did not sue the proper party, which is the Miami-Dade Property
Appraiser. Pursuant to section 194.171, a taxpayer may contest a tax
2 A VAB decision is not “appealable” in the formal sense of an appeal as a review proceeding. Crapo v. Acad. for Five Element Acupuncture, Inc., 278 So. 3d 113, 122 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019). “While this process is referred to as an ‘appeal’ of the board's decision, actions brought in the circuit court pursuant to section 194.032, now section 194.036, are original actions, not appeals.” Id. (quoting Williams v. Law, 368 So. 2d 1285 (Fla. 1979)).
4 assessment directly in circuit court, and sections 194.181(1) and (2)
identify the proper parties to “any tax suit.” Those sections indicate that a
value adjustment board is not a proper party in an action brought by a
taxpayer. Rather, the proper parties are the taxpayer and the property
appraiser or official of the state government responsible for overall
supervision of the assessment. See § 94.181(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2022) (“In
any case brought by a taxpayer or a condominium or cooperative
association, as defined in ss. 718.103 and 719.103, respectively, on behalf
of some or all unit or parcel owners, contesting the assessment of any
property, the county property appraiser is a party defendant.”). At that
point, pursuant to section 194.036, it is the county property appraiser who
will evaluate allegations of procedural and constitutional violations by the
VAB. 3
3 Section 194.036. Florida Statutes (2022), provides, in pertinent part:
Appeals of the decisions of the [Value Assessment] board shall be as follows:
(1) If the property appraiser disagrees with the decision of the board, he or she may appeal the decision to the circuit court if one or more of the following criteria are met:
(a) The property appraiser determines and affirmatively asserts in any legal proceeding that there is a specific constitutional or statutory violation, or a specific violation of administrative rules, in the decision of the board, except that
5 Although the Appellant argues that this is not a “tax suit,” the record
indicates that his initial petitions before the VAB were challenges to
property appraisals. The Appellant cannot now attempt to portray his
dissatisfaction with the VAB’s decision as procedural and constitutional
violations.
The Appellant relies on Higgs v. Prop. Appraisal Adjustment Board of
Monroe County, 411 So. 2d 307, 307 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), for the
proposition that the VAB can be sued by a taxpayer. This case, however,
involves the property appraiser, not the taxpayer, seeking injunctive relief
nothing herein shall authorize the property appraiser to institute any suit to challenge the validity of any portion of the constitution or of any duly enacted legislative act of this state; ...
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed May 4, 2022. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D21-2170 Lower Tribunal No. 21-2750 ________________
Wayne C. Johansson, Appellant,
vs.
Miami-Dade County Value Adjustment Board, Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Alan Fine, Judge.
Wayne C. Johansson, in proper person.
Millares Law Firm P.A., and Rafael E. Millares, for appellee.
Before LOGUE, HENDON and GORDO, JJ.
HENDON, J. Wayne C. Johansson (“Appellant”) appeals from a final order
dismissing with prejudice his complaint against the Miami-Dade County
Value Adjustment Board (“VAB”). 1 We affirm.
The Appellant asserted below that the VAB violated his procedural
due process rights in reviewing his 2019 and 2020 value petitions by failing
to adhere to the Florida Administrative Code. This was preceded by his
petitions before the VAB to challenge certain property appraisals. He
generally alleges the VAB denied his constitutional rights and ignored
various “government limitations,” as well as accused the VAB and its
members of civil conspiracy, misconduct, and constructive fraud.
Appellant’s Counts I-X of his amended complaint claim violations by the
VAB, VAB counsel, and the VAB special magistrates of certain Florida
statutes and the Florida Administrative Code. Counts XI-XII request a
permanent injunction and writ of mandamus against the VAB as well as
general damages, punitive damages, costs and fees.
The VAB moved to dismiss the Appellant’s amended complaint with
prejudice asserting the VAB is a quasi-judicial entity immune from suit.
1 Value adjustment boards are quasi-judicial state entities created by Florida statute to allow taxpayers to administratively challenge their tax assessments. §§194.011 through 194.036, Fla. Stat. (2022); Redford v. Department of Revenue, 478 So. 2d 808, 810 (Fla. 1985).
2 The VAB argued that section 194.181, Florida Statutes, provides that the
proper party to any case brought by a taxpayer to challenge property
assessment is the county property appraiser, and that the VAB could not
be a party to this lawsuit.
At the October 4, 2021, videoconference hearing on the VAB’s
motion to dismiss, the Appellant contended that he was not asserting a
property tax issue, but rather alleged that the VAB violated his
constitutional due process rights by not following certain Florida
Administrative Code procedures. When asked by the court if he could
provide examples of the alleged constitutional due process violations he
contended the VAB committed, the Appellant generally stated, 1) in 2019
the administrative hearing officer used false evidence to justify her decision
against the appellant; 2) in 2020, the hearing officer found that the office of
the property appraiser did not substantiate its evaluation. The Appellant
also accused the VAB of acting with legal malice by using administrative
review processes to render arbitrary and capricious final decisions against
him, and failed to support its final decision with required facts and
conclusions of law. The trial court heard the parties’ arguments and
ultimately granted the VAB’s motion to dismiss – not on the merits but
because the VAB, as a quasi-judicial entity, is immune from suit, even a
3 suit alleging a procedural due process violation. The trial court dismissed
the Appellant’s complaint with prejudice, explaining that there was no claim
the Appellant could bring that would allow him to sue the VAB.
We review de novo an order granting a motion to dismiss with
prejudice. Chakra 5, Inc. v. City of Miami Beach, 254 So. 3d 1056, 1061
(Fla. 3d DCA 2018).
Discussion
The VAB is not the proper party to a suit challenging property
assessment, or procedural or constitutional violations by the VAB. The
record shows that the Appellant originally challenged certain property
appraisals or assessments before the VAB. The VAB rendered a quasi-
judicial ruling pursuant to sections 194.036(2) and 194.171, Florida
Statutes. Dissatisfied with the process and outcome, the Appellant
“appealed” the VAB’s decision before the circuit court, 2 but as the record
shows, he did not sue the proper party, which is the Miami-Dade Property
Appraiser. Pursuant to section 194.171, a taxpayer may contest a tax
2 A VAB decision is not “appealable” in the formal sense of an appeal as a review proceeding. Crapo v. Acad. for Five Element Acupuncture, Inc., 278 So. 3d 113, 122 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019). “While this process is referred to as an ‘appeal’ of the board's decision, actions brought in the circuit court pursuant to section 194.032, now section 194.036, are original actions, not appeals.” Id. (quoting Williams v. Law, 368 So. 2d 1285 (Fla. 1979)).
4 assessment directly in circuit court, and sections 194.181(1) and (2)
identify the proper parties to “any tax suit.” Those sections indicate that a
value adjustment board is not a proper party in an action brought by a
taxpayer. Rather, the proper parties are the taxpayer and the property
appraiser or official of the state government responsible for overall
supervision of the assessment. See § 94.181(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2022) (“In
any case brought by a taxpayer or a condominium or cooperative
association, as defined in ss. 718.103 and 719.103, respectively, on behalf
of some or all unit or parcel owners, contesting the assessment of any
property, the county property appraiser is a party defendant.”). At that
point, pursuant to section 194.036, it is the county property appraiser who
will evaluate allegations of procedural and constitutional violations by the
VAB. 3
3 Section 194.036. Florida Statutes (2022), provides, in pertinent part:
Appeals of the decisions of the [Value Assessment] board shall be as follows:
(1) If the property appraiser disagrees with the decision of the board, he or she may appeal the decision to the circuit court if one or more of the following criteria are met:
(a) The property appraiser determines and affirmatively asserts in any legal proceeding that there is a specific constitutional or statutory violation, or a specific violation of administrative rules, in the decision of the board, except that
5 Although the Appellant argues that this is not a “tax suit,” the record
indicates that his initial petitions before the VAB were challenges to
property appraisals. The Appellant cannot now attempt to portray his
dissatisfaction with the VAB’s decision as procedural and constitutional
violations.
The Appellant relies on Higgs v. Prop. Appraisal Adjustment Board of
Monroe County, 411 So. 2d 307, 307 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), for the
proposition that the VAB can be sued by a taxpayer. This case, however,
involves the property appraiser, not the taxpayer, seeking injunctive relief
nothing herein shall authorize the property appraiser to institute any suit to challenge the validity of any portion of the constitution or of any duly enacted legislative act of this state; ... (c) There is an assertion by the property appraiser to the Department of Revenue that there exists a consistent and continuous violation of the intent of the law or administrative rules by the value adjustment board in its decisions. . . . If the department finds upon investigation that a consistent and continuous violation of the intent of the law or administrative rules by the board has occurred, it shall so inform the property appraiser, who may thereupon bring suit in circuit court against the value adjustment board for injunctive relief to prohibit continuation of the violation of the law or administrative rules and for a mandatory injunction to restore the tax roll to its just value in such amount as determined by judicial proceeding. . . .
(Emphasis added).
6 against the Monroe County VAB. In that case, the Court reversed the
judgment of the trial court denying the property appraiser injunctive and
other relief sought pursuant to section 194.032(6)(a)(3), Florida Statutes
(1977), against the Property Appraisal Adjustment Board. The Court
explained,
In essence, this statute provides that if, after investigation, the Department of Revenue makes a probable cause determination that “there exists a consistent and continuous violation of the intent of the law or administrative rules by the Property Appraisal Adjustment Board in its decisions,” see Property Appraisal Adjustment Board of Sarasota County v. Florida Department of Revenue, 349 So. 2d 804 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977), the Property Appraiser may bring suit to enjoin such future violations and to “restore the tax roll to its just value in such amount as determined by judicial proceeding.”
(Emphasis added). The Higgs opinion does not support the Appellant’s
contention that an individual taxpayer can sue a VAB.
Ultimately, however, the VAB as a quasi-judicial body is immune from
suit by the taxpayer. Courts apply immunity to decisional actions that are
part and parcel of the judicial process, or functionally comparable to the
work of judges—making decisions, resolving disputes, adjudicating rights,
processing cases, and the like. See e.g., Montejo v. Martin Mem'l Med.
Ctr., 935 So. 2d 1266, 1270 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (rejecting a hospital's
quasi-judicial immunity claim because its action was not co-extensive with
immunity afforded judges); Hill v. Suwannee River Water Mgmt. Dist., 217
7 So. 3d 1100, 1102–03 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017). A judge or quasi-judicial official
may claim judicial immunity only if she can demonstrate: (1) the ruling in
question was a ‘judicial act’ and (2) there was jurisdiction to issue the
ruling.” Fuller v. Truncale, 50 So. 3d 25, 28 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). “When
these two prongs can be shown, the judge or quasi-judicial official may
claim judicial immunity, even if the ruling in question was unwise, reckless,
or malicious.” Id. Absolute quasi-judicial immunity for nonjudicial officials is
determined by a functional analysis of their actions in relation to the judicial
process.” Zoba v. City of Coral Springs, 189 So. 3d 888, 891 (Fla. 4th DCA
2016) (quotation omitted).4 The VAB’s decisions and actions at issue in
this case demonstrate both quasi-judicial activity and the jurisdiction to
issue the rulings challenged by the Appellant. For the foregoing reasons,
we affirm the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint with prejudice. See
4 Courts in Florida and elsewhere have applied quasi-judicial immunity in many instances where non-judges have made decisions resembling judicial acts. See, e.g., Fuller, 50 So. 3d at 28 (immunity applied to clerk of court's adjudication of traffic infractions and suspending drivers' licenses); Fong v. Forman, 105 So. 3d 650, 653 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (same); Dep't of Highway Safety v. Marks, 898 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (decisions of a hearing officer); Andrews v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 768 So. 2d 1257 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (decisions by the Parole Commission); Office of State Attorney, Fourth Judicial Cir. of Fla. v. Parrotino, 628 So. 2d 1097, 1098 (Fla. 1993) (decisions by state attorneys); Johnson v. Harris, 645 So. 2d 96, 98 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994) (immunity applied to a date stamp placed by a judge's assistant); see also Martin v. Hendren, 127 F. 3d 720, 721 (8th Cir. 1997) (immunity applied to a law enforcement officer's courtroom action taken at the judge's behest).
8 Rodriguez v. Tax Adjustment Experts of Fla., Inc., 551 So. 2d 537, 537–38
(Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (holding that a special master appointed by the Dade
County Property Appraisal Adjustment Board is a quasi-judicial officer and
immune from suit).
Affirmed.