Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

statutelease
statutewilllease

Related Cases

In re State Freight Tax, 82 U.S. 232, 1872 WL 15389, 21 L.Ed. 146, 15 Wall. 232, 1 Am.Rep. 399, 12 P.F. Smith 286
View Case »
Millennium Park Joint Venture, LLC v. Houlihan, 241 Ill.2d 281, 948 N.E.2d 1, 349 Ill.Dec. 898
View Case »
Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Taggart, 163 U.S. 1, 16 S.Ct. 1054, 41 L.Ed. 49
View Case »
Henneford v. Silas Mason Co., 300 U.S. 577, 57 S.Ct. 524, 81 L.Ed. 814
View Case »
McLane Southern, Inc. v. Bridges, 84 So.3d 479, 2011-1141 (La. 1/24/12)
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Valencia Center, Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So.2d 214, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 222

Facts

Valencia Center owns property developed as a shopping center, which is zoned for office buildings up to thirteen stories. A pre-1965 lease with Publix Supermarkets restricts development, preventing Valencia from utilizing the property to its highest potential. The property appraiser assessed the value based on recent sales of comparable properties, while Valencia argued that the assessment should reflect the current use and income from the lease.

Valencia attempted to develop the property at issue for thirteen-story use but was precluded from doing so by a judicial determination that a pre–1965 lease to Publix Supermarkets, which is highly favorable to Publix, restricts development.

Issue

Whether section 193.023(6) is constitutional, and whether the property appraiser arrived at a proper assessment for the shopping center property for the years 1981, 1982, 1984, and 1985.

This case presents two issues: whether section 193.023(6) is constitutional, and whether the property appraiser arrived at a proper assessment for shopping center property for the years 1981, 1982, 1984, and 1985.

Rule

The legislature cannot establish different classes of property for tax purposes other than those enumerated in the Florida Constitution, and the just valuation of property must reflect fair market value.

Our decision on the constitutionality of this statute is controlled by Interlachen Lake Estates, Inc. v. Snyder, 304 So.2d 433 (Fla.1974).

Analysis

The court determined that the property appraiser correctly assessed the property based on its highest and best use, which is for thirteen-story buildings, despite the below-market lease. The court referenced previous rulings that prospective value can be considered in the assessment, and that the overall interest in the property must be taxed as if the owner possessed the property in fee simple.

In arriving at fair market value, a willing buyer most certainly would consider that Valencia's property is zoned for thirteen-story buildings. The appraiser properly considered this potential future use.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the statute was unconstitutional and that the property appraiser's assessment was proper.

We affirm the district court decision.

Who won?

The prevailing party was the property appraiser, as the court upheld the assessment and invalidated the statute that restricted how property could be assessed.

The court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the statute was unconstitutional and that the property appraiser's assessment was proper.

You must be