Item D2010 SM Findings
Exemptions/Classifications
Item D
Number
-
IName
_ -- -. -
lAgent
10utcome
E001
-
Martin S. Walker
- -
-
Denied wit hout prejudice
E008
James R. Stoker
- -
--_
- -
Denied
E020
John McCormick _
Lacks jurisdiction
E021
Michael Reinstein
Granted
DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
VALUE PETITION
DEPARTMENT
OF REVENUE
CountyMtdree—
DR-485V
N. 12/09
Rule 12D-16.002
Florida Administrative Code
ese
tions below were taken on your petition.
actions are a recommendation only, not final. Ej These actions are a final decision of the VAB.
If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court
to further contest your assessment (sections 193.155(8)(k), 194.036, 194.171(2), and 196.151, F.S.).
Petition # E C C Parcel ID C Cc Z -1 c— Cc c, C t C)Petitioner name tV a o: ti 5 . W a I Address ILI p 8 C 5-4 �f f
The petitioner is: taxpayer of record taxpayers agent
other, explain: /-1 N �LtF.�f� F-Lr
Decision Summyy
E, Denied your petition '4v"� Granted your petition Granted your petition in part
Value
Lines 1 and 4 must be completed.
Before Board Action
Value presented by property appraiser
Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C.
After Board Action
1. Market value, required
$
$
2. Assessed or classified use value,*
if applicable
$
$
3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none
$
$
4. Taxable value,* required $ $
*All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ (section 196.031(7)(d), F.S.).
Reasons for Decision
Findings of Fact Use additional sheets, if needed.
�-� ryte5ir,.,i �1t+�e��%o•J v(rSwNS�a:iS Lt,v ) v,—O h-( �hrf/}Y AfP/4:bel
(�pc�,M,.2„t I sf��t �,��r�t.v. (^DI.✓'NSth:/s t:N E l.\ Zeta 70- `Icar
conclusions of Law I Use additional sheets, if needed.
o.v �p�t�. LfpS �,'lt 0 "I Gov lsh.. v .✓ �S
f� 2� �o(•i�t f0� -I,'ear 4o
.Sw64' rrC D (Q�N•{,0... s7C` �V II 4L � R k �'(?Il/ /I,4,%q, t.Z.+
FI J rZC04 w.4 W'��✓N.�t �'1 ��t'��-rS
[�?'RecomTpWW
D ision of Special Magistrate Findings and conclusions above are recommendations.
/71
Signat I ma istrate Print name
Date
let I'll elId-6 Na" - -,, K
117-1 Z
Sign-a-tute, VAB 4erk or representative Print name
Date
If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on
at
Address Date
Time
If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision
will be considered.
To find the information, please call 3 01 • 2 VS 31 3 J or visit our web site at
Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board
Signature, chair, value adjustment board not name ate of decision
1 oignarure, vrus cierK or representative not name Dqfp mai p „—,3 .o.
2010 VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
IN RE:
JAMES STOKER,
Petitioner,
V.
ERVIN A. HIGGS, Property Appraiser
of Monroe County, Florida,
Respondent.
PETITION NO. E008-2010
SPECIAL MAGISTRATE'S (EXEMPTIONS/CLASSIFICATIONS)
RECOMMENDED ORDER TO THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIS PETITION was before the Special Magistrate (Exemptions/
Classifications) on Tuesday, November 30, 2010, on Petitioner's challenge to the
Property Appraiser's removal of a homestead exemption for real property located
at 96000 Overseas Highway, #03, Key Largo, Florida ("Subject Condominium
Property").
After conducting a hearing, reviewing the evidence submitted, hearing
testimony and legal argument, and being otherwise more fully advised, the
undersigned Special Magistrate submits this recommended decision.
L FINDINGS OF FACT
A. On or about July 18, 1980, Petitioner and his then -Wife purchased the
Subject Condominium Property.
B. In 1999, Petitioner and his then -Wife divorced.
C. In November 2000, Petitioner and his Former Wife deeded the
Subject Condominium Property to Petitioner, individually.'
D. Petitioner applied for and received a homestead exemption on the
Subject Condominium Property beginning with the 2001 tax year.
E. On or about August 15, 2005, Petitioner deeded the Subject
Condominium Property to himself and Marilou Gonzalez, and, by virtue of this
August 15, 2005 Warranty Deed, Petitioner and Ms. Gonzalez owned the Subject
Condominium Property as joint tenants with the right of survivorship.
F. Petitioner and Ms. Gonzalez were not married. However, Petitioner
and Ms. Gonzalez lived together romantically in the Subject Condominium
Property until early 2010 when Ms. Gonzalez left Petitioner and established a
romantic relationship with Petitioner's "best friend."
G. Upon being deeded her one-half interest in the Subject Condominium
Property in 2005, Ms. Gonzalez applied for, and was granted a homestead
exemption on her portion (50%) of the Subject Condominium Property beginning
with the 2006 tax year.2
' The following month, in December 2000, a Corrective Quit -Claim Deed was
recorded for the Subject Condominium Property.
2 Pursuant to § 196.031(1)(a), Fla. Stat., exemptions are apportioned among joint
tenants who reside on the property.
2
H. After entering into a romantic relationship with Petitioner's "best
friend," Ms. Gonzalez moved to Palm Beach County, and on April 8, 2010, Ms.
Gonzalez, via Quit -Claim Deed, deeded her ownership interest in the Subject
Condominium Property to Petitioner, so that, after the execution and delivery of
the Quit -Claim Deed, Petitioner was the sole owner of the Subject Condominium
Property.
I. On or about April 22, 2010, Ms. Gonzalez applied for a homestead
exemption on property she owned in Palm Beach County and Ms. Gonzalez sought
for such exemption to be effective for the 2010 tax roll.
J. Notwithstanding Ms. Gonzalez's late filing of her request for
homestead exemption on her Palm Beach County property, the Palm Beach County
Property Appraiser granted Ms. Gonzalez's Application for Homestead Exemption
on her Palm Beach County property, effective with the 2010 tax year.
K. As a result of Ms. Gonzalez receiving homestead protection on her
Palm Beach County property for the 2010 tax year, the Monroe County Property
Appraiser removed Ms. Gonzalez's homestead exemption on the Subject
Condominium Property for the 2010 tax roll.
L. Because Ms. Gonzalez received a homestead exemption on her Palm
Beach County property effective for the tax year beginning January 1, 2010, the
valuation of her fifty percent (50%) interest in the Subject Condominium Property
3
was not subject to the homestead valuation assessment protections outlined in §
193.155, Fla. Stat. for the 2010 tax year.
M. Hence, the Monroe County Property Appraiser notified the Petitioner
that fifty percent (50%) of the Subject Condominium Property (i.e. that portion of
the Subject Condominium Property which had previously been subject to Ms.
Gonzalez's homestead protection) would be subject to just valuation, thereby
resulting in a higher valuation of that fifty percent (50%) interest.
N. Petitioner timely filed the instant Petition, challenging the Property
Appraiser's just valuation of the Subject Condominium Property.
II. JURISDICTION OF THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE
Normally, challenges to just valuation are determined by the Just Valuation
Special Magistrate as opposed to the Exemptions/Classifications Special
Magistrate. However, in this case, because the Petitioner is actually challenging
the removal of Ms. Gonzalez's homestead exemption on the 50% interest Ms.
Gonzalez previously owned in the Subject Condominium Property, the instant
Petition challenges an exemption removed by the Property Appraiser — rather than
a valuation made by the Property Appraiser, and is, therefore, properly before the
Exemption Special Magistrate.
M
III. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Petitioner challenges the Monroe County Property Appraiser's removal of
Ms. Gonzalez's homestead exemption on her 50% interest in the Subject
Condominium Property which resulted in an increase in valuation of that 50%
interest in the Subject Condominium Property (i.e. that portion of the Subject
Condominium Property attributed to Ms. Gonzalez).
Petitioner, in effect, argues that the Property Appraiser should not have
valued Ms. Gonzalez's share of the Subject Condominium Property at just value
for the 2010 tax year. Rather, Petitioner argues, the Property Appraiser should
have treated Ms. Gonzalez's April 22, 2010 transfer of her interest in the Subject
Condominium Property to Petitioner as a "transfer due to a dissolution of
marriage."
Petitioner argues that, had the Property Appraiser treated Ms. Gonzalez's
April 22, 2010 Quit -Claim Deed as a "transfer due to a dissolution of marriage" as
opposed to a "change of ownership" then the Property Appraiser's statutory
requirement to reassess the Subject Condominium Property at just valuation would
not have been triggered.
To better understand Petitioner's argument, and the Property Appraiser's
valuation of the Subject Condominium Property, it is important to understand the
relevant portions of Florida's statutory assessment scheme.
5
Section 193.155(1), Fla. Stat., provides for a three percent (3%) annual cap
on valuation of homesteaded property. Regardless of the just valuation of
property, the property appraiser is statutorily prohibited from increasing the
valuation on homesteaded property greater than 3% in any given year.
However, in the event of a "change in ownership" of real property, the
property appraiser is required to assess real property at its just value and such
"post -change in ownership" assessment is not subject to the 3% cap (`the change in
ownership rule"). Section 193.155(3)(a), Fla. Stat.
Section 193.155, however, carves out statutory exceptions to "the change of
ownership rule." For example, a transfer of title to correct a scrivener's error is not
considered a "change of ownership" if the same person is entitled to the homestead
exemption. Section 193.155(3)(a)(i)(A), Fla. Stat.
The statutory carve -out to "the change of ownership rule" relevant to the
instant case is found in § 193.155(3)(a)(ii). Pursuant to this provision, no "change
of ownership" is deemed to occur if "... legal or equitable title is changed or
transferred between husband and wife, including a change or transfer to a surviving
spouse or a transfer due to dissolution of marriage." (Emphasis added).
In short, due to the circumstances surrounding Petitioner's relationship with
Ms. Gonzalez, Petitioner is seeking to treat Ms. Gonzalez's April 8, 2010 Quit-
Z
claim Deed to Petitioner as a "transfer due to a dissolution of marriage" therefore
exempting the transfer from "the change of ownership rule."
While Petitioner makes a compelling argument that his relationship with Ms.
Gonzalez was tantamount to a marriage resulting in a dissolution, the undersigned
is without the legal and statutory authority to rewrite or interpret the statute as
Petitioner suggests. The statutory exemption to "the change of ownership rule"
relied upon by Petitioner applies only to "marriages" which have been "dissolved."
Petitioner could provide no legal authority for Petitioner's assertions that (i)
Petitioner's relationship with Ms. Gonzalez should be treated like a marriage, and
(ii) Ms. Gonzalez's leaving Petitioner for Petitioner's best friend should be treated
like a dissolution of that marriage. Absent some legal authority supporting
Petitioner's argument, the undersigned Special Magistrate is simple without the
legal authority to deviate from the clear and unambiguous language found in the
statutory exception to "the change in ownership rule."
Finally, it should be noted that "the change in ownership rule" requires
property to be reassessed at just valuation "... as of January 1 S` of the year
following a change of ownership." (Emphasis added).3 While Petitioner did not
argue that the Property Appraiser's removal of Ms. Gonzalez's homestead
exemption on the Subject Condominium Property, and subsequent reassessment of
3 See, § 193.155(3)(a), Fla. Stat.
7
her 50% interest at just valuation, was premature, had Petitioner made such an
argument, it likely would have been unsuccessful.4
Ms. Gonzalez applied for, and was granted, a homestead exemption by the
Palm Beach County Property Appraiser for property that she owned in Palm Beach
County; such exemption was retroactively applied by the Palm Beach County
Property Appraiser for the 2010 tax year. A person may have only one permanent
residence at a time, § 196.012(18), Fla. Stat., and therefore may have only one
homestead exemption at a time.
Hence, since the Palm Beach County Property Appraiser granted Ms.
Gonzalez a homestead exemption on her Palm Beach County property as of
January 1, 2010, the Monroe County Property Appraiser was powerless to
recognize Ms. Gonzalez's homestead exemption for the Subject Condominium
Property as Petitioner argues.
The Monroe County Property Appraiser correctly removed Ms. Gonzalez's
homestead on the Subject Condominium Property effective January 1, 2010 and,
correctly assessed her 50% interest in the Subject Condominium Property at just
valuation as required by § 193.155(3)(A), Fla. Stat.
' Presumably, Petitioner could have argued that since Ms. Gonzalez's Quit -Claim
Deed was recorded on April 22, 2010, the Property Appraiser's reassessment of
her interest in the Subject Condominium Property at just valuation should have
occurred as of January 1, 2011 (i.e. the year following the change in ownership).
n
IV. REASONS FOR UPHOLDING THE
DETERMINATION OF THE PROPERTY APPRAISER
For the reasons stated above, the undersigned recommends the Value
Adjustment Board uphold the decision of the Monroe County Property Appraiser.
DONE AND ORDERED this 1*--,day of December, 2010.
EDWIISrA. SCALES, III
VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
SPECIAL MAGISTRATE —
Copies furnished to: EXEMPTIONS/CLASSIFICATIONS
James Stoker
John C. Dent, Jr., Esquire
Robert Tischenkel, Esquire
Pam Hancock, D.C.
Z
2009 VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
IN RE:
JOHN McCORMICK, PETITION NO. E020-2010
Petitioner,
V.
ERVIN A. HIGGS, Property Appraiser
of Monroe County, Florida,
Respondent.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
THIS PETITION came before the Special Magistrate
(Exemptions/Classifications) on Friday, January 21, 2011.
L Relevant Factual And Procedural Background
Petitioner alleges that Respondent has improperly denied Petitioner a 100%
homestead exemption in Petitioner's real property located at 1921 Venetia Street,
Key West, Florida 33040.
Petitioner alleges that Petitioner acquired the subject property with his then -
wife, Rose, in approximately 2002.
On December 1, 2006, Circuit Judge Sandra Taylor entered a Final
Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage ("Dissolution Order") which Dissolution
Order is recorded in the Official Records Book of Monroe County at Book 2256,
Page 2369.
Paragraph 8 of Judge Taylor's Dissolution Order provides for the equitable
distribution of the subject property between Petitioner and his former wife, Rose.
According to Petitioner, as a result of Judge Taylor's Dissolution Order, the
subject property is held by the Petitioner and his former wife as joint tenants with
rights of survivorship.
Additionally, according to Petitioner, Judge Taylor's Dissolution Order
purports to provide for a distribution of the proceeds in the event the property is
sold.
Prior to Judge Taylor's Dissolution Order, the subject property was owned
by the couple as tenants by the entireties.
However, according to the Respondent, by operation of law, upon the
divorce, ownership "by the entireties" was destroyed. According to Respondent,
notwithstanding any provision of the Dissolution Order, upon the divorce, the
subject property was deemed owned by the parties as tenants in common, with
each party having a 50% undivided interest in the subject property.
Petitioner disputes Respondent's characterization of how the subject
property is owned, vis-a-vis Petitioner and his former wife.
2
Specifically, Petitioner argues that, based on Judge Taylor's Dissolution
Order, Petitioner has a substantially greater ownership interest in the subject
property than Petitioner's former wife. Petitioner further argues that, pursuant to
the Save Our Homes Amendment, Petitioner would have received substantially
greater ad valorem tax relief had the Respondent assessed Petitioner's alleged
homestead exemption as alleged by Petitioner.
The parties stipulated that, in 2008, Petitioner had filed a lawsuit in the
Circuit Court in and for Monroe County challenging both (i) Respondent's
interpretation of the Dissolution Order, and (ii) Respondent's allocation of
Petitioner's homestead exemption. In effect, the lawsuit challenges Respondent's
interpretation of the force and effect of Judge Taylor's Dissolution Order on
Petitioner's homestead claim. See, § 194.032(1)(a), Fla. Stat. Petitioner responded
that the instant petition was filed to preserve Petitioner's administrative rights.
II. Summary Of Arrument
At the hearing, Respondent argued that the undersigned lacks jurisdiction to
hear this matter because the undersigned's jurisdiction is limited by statute to
hearing appeals from exemptions denied or disputes arising from exemptions
granted upon the filing of an exemption application as contemplated in § 196.011,
Fla. Stat.
3
III. Analysis and Conclusions of Law
The threshold issue before the undersigned is whether the undersigned has
jurisdiction to rule upon Respondent's interpretation of the force and effect of
Judge Taylor's Dissolution Order.
The jurisdiction of the Special Magistrate (Exemptions/Classification) is
prescribed by § 194.032(1)(a), Fla. Stat.
In relevant part, the Value Adjustment Board' has jurisdiction over four (4)
categories of disputes: petitions relating to valuation assessments;2 complaints
related to homestead exemptions as provided for under § 196.151, Fla. Stat.;3
appeals from exemptions denied or disputes arising from exemptions granted upon
the filing of exemption applications under § 196.011, Fla. Stat. ;4 and appeals
concerning ad valorem tax deferrals and classifications.5
Respondent argues — and Petitioner does not dispute — that the only
applicable category of jurisdiction implicated by the instant petition would be
"appeals from exemptions denied or disputes arising from exemptions granted
' And, by virtue of § 194.035, Fla. Stat., the Special Magistrate.
2 Section 194.032(1)(a)(i), Fla. Stat.
3 Section 194.032(1)(a)(ii), Fla. Stat.
4 Section 194.032(1)(a)(iii), Fla. Stat.
5 Section 194.032(1)(a)(iv), Fla. Stat.
rd
upon the filing of exemption applications under § 196.011, Fla. Stat." (i.e., that
category of jurisdiction outlined in § 194.032(1)(a)(iii), Fla. Stat.).
It is undisputed that Petitioner did not file an exemption application under §
196.011, Fla. Stat., for the 2010 tax year.
Respondent argues that, since Petitioner is receiving a homestead exemption
for Petitioner's 50% ownership in the subject property, only Petitioner's former
wife, Rose, would have standing to file such an application regarding the
remaining 50% ownership of the subject property.6
Additionally, Respondent argues that, since the issue of interpreting the
force and effect of the Dissolution Order is properly before the Circuit Court, the
undersigned has no jurisdiction to hear this matter.
Petitioner argues that Petitioner's filing of the instant Petition was done to
protect Petitioner's administrative rights.
Section 196.151, Fla. Stat., clearly provides a scheme for homestead
applications, refusal of those homestead applications, and hearings to be conducted
on same. Respondent correctly points out that there is technically no "application
for tax exemption" to be considered in the instant case.
° Of course, if Petitioner prevails in his litigation, Respondent may be required to
revisit this position.
E
Indeed, the parties stipulate that the matter for adjudication is currently
pending before the Monroe County Circuit Court. Hence, it appears from the
statutory scheme that neither the Value Adjustment Board, nor the Special
Magistrate, is empowered to review the matter in this case.
Hence, the undersigned lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear this matter.
DONE AND ORDERED this - dY ry,
a of Jan 2011.
EDWN A. SCALES, III
VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
SPECIAL MASTER —
Copies furnished to: EXEMPTIONS/CLASSIFICATIONS
John McCormick
Robert Tischenkel, Esquire
Pam Hancock
' Nothing herein, including the recitation of the Relevant Factual and Procedural
Background, should be interpreted, in any way, to constitute a ruling on the merits
of Petitioner's Petition.
0