Hotelerama Associates, Ltd. v. Bystrom, 83-2102

• Decision Date: 28 February 1984
• Docket Number: No. 83-2102,83-2102
• Citation: 449 So.2d 836
• Parties: HOTELERAMA ASSOCIATES, LTD., Appellant, v. Frank BYSTROM, B.W. Williams and Randy Miller, Appellees.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 836

449 So.2d 836

HOTELERAMA ASSOCIATES, LTD., Appellant, v. Frank BYSTROM, B.W. Williams and Randy Miller, Appellees.

No. 83-2102.

District Court of Appeal of Florida Third District.

Feb. 28, 1984.

Rehearing Denied May 30, 1984.

Lapidus & Stettin and Robert P. Frankel, Miami, for appellant.

Robert A. Ginsburg, County Atty. and Daniel A. Weiss, Asst. County Atty., for appellees.

Before BARKDULL, BASKIN and FERGUSON, JJ.

FERGUSON, Judge.

This is another episode in the annual dispute between the Property Appraiser of Dade County and the Fountainebleau-Hilton Hotel Complex. Hotelerama Associates, Ltd., owner of the Fountainebleau-Hilton, within the period provided by statute, filed its complaint contesting the validity of a 1982 assessment on its property. By separate motion Hotelerama also sought to temporarily enjoin the tax collector from declaring it as delinquent in tax payments, from advertising tax certificates, from publishing it as a delinquent taxpayer, and from selling tax certificates upon the property for taxes in an amount in excess of taxes already paid for the tax year 1982.

In 1982, appellant's property was assessed at approximately $51,000,000, a sum which appellant claims is "outrageously" in excess of the property's just or fair market value. The Dade County Property Appraisal Adjustment Board, after hearing an appeal, declined to lower the assessment. Hotelerama paid to the tax collector an amount which it claims is a good faith estimate of what is actually owed. The amount paid is based on an assessed value of approximately $32,000,000. It then instituted this lawsuit seeking a determination that the assessment is constitutionally "void, unjust and unfair."

The tax appraiser and tax collector filed an answer which denied the material allegations of the complaint. It specifically denied that the payment of taxes made by Hotelerama represented a good faith estimate of the proper assessment. ¹ As affirmative defenses, the taxing authorities alleged that (1) the complaint fails to state a cause of action for a void assessment, and (2) the complaint fails to state a cause of action for injunctive relief.

The matter came on for hearing on motion for temporary injunction. After a hearing the court entered an order denying the motion, stating:

The Court finds and concludes that the Plaintiff/taxpayer has failed to meet its burden of pleading and showing either:

1. That the taxes which are the subject matter of this action appear to be contrary to the law or equity; or

2. That it is entitled to an injunction pursuant to Fla.R.Civ.P., 1.610.

We reverse.

The sufficiency of the motion setting forth grounds for injunctive relief was not, as it should have been, an issue at the hearing. The trial court instead based its decision on a review of the merits, ruling in effect that the complaint failed to state a cause of action. Whether the taxes which are the subject matter of the action are contrary to law or equity goes to the very merits of the action, and could not have been resolved on a motion for temporary injunction unless (1) the hearing had been specially set for the purpose of disposing of the case on the merits, and (2) the parties had been given a full opportunity to present their cases on the merits. University of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 101 S.Ct. 1830, 68 L.Ed.2d 175 (1981); City of Miami Springs v. Steffen, 423 So.2d 930 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Ladner v. Plaza Del Prado Condominium Association, Inc., 423 So.2d 927 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), rev. denied, 434 So.2d 887 (Fla.1983). In this case no evidence or legal argument was presented on the challenge...