Palm Beach Mall, Inc. v. City of West Palm Beach, s. 71--366

• Decision Date: 08 June 1973
• Docket Number: Nos. 71--366,s. 71--366
• Parties: PALM BEACH MALL, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. The CITY OF WEST PALM BEACH, Florida, et al., Appellees. (two cases) PALM BEACH MALL, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. Jack DEAN, County Administrator of Palm Beach County et al., Appellees. to 71--368.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 56

279 So.2d 56

PALM BEACH MALL, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. The CITY OF WEST PALM BEACH, Florida, et al., Appellees. (two cases)

PALM BEACH MALL, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. Jack DEAN, County Administrator of Palm Beach County et al., Appellees.

Nos. 71--366 to 71--368.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 8, 1973.

Rehearings Denied July 2, 238 1973.

Robert C. Ward, of Sibley, Giblin, Levenson & Ward, Miami Beach, for appellant.

James W. Vance, West Palm Beach, for appellee City of West Palm Beach.

Sidney A. Stubbs, Jr., of Jones, Paine & Foster, West Palm Beach, for appellees Jack Dean, Co. Administrator of Palm Beach Co. and others.

PER CURIAM.

These are consolidated appeals from a final judgment fixing ad valorem tax valuation on the property of the appellant for the years 1968 and 1969. The trial court found the following values for City and County taxes: 1968, valuation of 15.5-million dollars for City tax purposes; 1969, valuation for City tax purposes 15.1-million dollars; and 1969, valuation for County tax purposes 15.1-million dollars.

From a review and consideration of the record before this court we are of the opinion that the tax values found by the trial court are not supported by competent substantial evidence. As the trial court observed, the City conceded that its assessed value of $19,752,400.00 for 1968, and $20,000,200.00 for 1969 were excessive and were not supported by evidence at the trial. ¹ The tax value determined by the lower court was based exclusively on the testimony of defendant's appraiser. ² The various approaches utilized by the defendant's appraiser in arriving at certain valuations, i.e., market data approach and an income approach, was premised upon a consideration of comparable sales and an analysis of case studies involving shopping center valuations. In our opinion the premise relied upon by the appraiser was faulty inasmuch as there was a failure to reasonably relate the factors upon which the appraiser relied to the specific property in question. While the approaches utilized by the appraiser and relied upon by the court are conventional, the values ultimately determined were predicated upon consideration of erroneous factors.

Although the appellant, through his own appraisers, presented evidence that the value of the property for tax purposes for 1968 and 1969 was between 11-million and 11.4-million dollars, we are also of the opinion that such evidence does not support the appellant's asserted value.

Accordingly and with due recognition of the complexities involved in the determination of tax values we must reverse the order appealed from and remand the same for new trial consistent herewith.

Reversed and remanded.

WALDEN and MAGER, JJ., concur.

REED, C.J., dissents, with opinion.

REED, Chief Judge (dissenting).

The issue presented by this appeal is whether or not the trial court's judgment is supported by competent substantial evidence of the just value of the Palm Beach Mall for ad valorem...