Two M Development Corp. v. Mikos, s. 90-00747
| Decision Date | 26 April 1991 |
| Docket Number | 90-01469,Nos. 90-00747,s. 90-00747 |
| Citation | 16 Fla. L. Weekly 1133,578 So.2d 829 |
| Parties | 16 Fla. L. Weekly 1133 TWO M DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Appellant, v. John W. MIKOS, Property Appraiser of Sarasota County, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Jim D. Syprett of Syprett, Meshad, Resnick & Lieb, P.A., Sarasota, for appellant.
John C. Dent, Jr., and Beth E. Antrim-Berger of Dent, Antrim-Berger, Cook & Weber, P.A., Sarasota, for appellee.
The appellant, Two M Development Corporation, challenges the trial court's judgment determining that the court did not have jurisdiction to consider its claim that the appellee, John W. Mikos, Property Appraiser of Sarasota County, had improperly assessed its property. We reverse.
In December 1986, the appellant filed an action challenging the appellee's tax assessment of its property consisting of twenty-four shell units. The appellant challenged the tax assessment on two grounds. Count I of the complaint alleged that the property was not substantially complete at the time of the assessment, and therefore, the assessment was improper and excessive. As to count II of the complaint, the appellant argued that if it were judicially determined that the property should be valued as substantially completed units, the assessment was still excessive and arbitrary because it failed to properly consider the statutory factors required by section 193.011, Florida Statutes (1985). At the conclusion of a nonjury trial, the trial court entered a final judgment holding that the units were not substantially completed and ordered the appellee to reassess the property and treat it as unimproved property.
The appellee appealed the final judgment, and on June 30, 1989, in Mikos v. Two M Dev. Corp., 546 So.2d 1110 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989), this court held that the appellee, appellant in that case, correctly assessed the property as substantially complete. The final judgment was reversed and the cause remanded with instructions to reinstate the tax assessment. The appellant's motion for a rehearing was denied.
Subsequent to the issuance of our mandate in Mikos, the trial court entered two judgments in this matter. First, the court entered a judgment which vacated the original judgment in favor of the appellant and entered judgment in favor of the appellee. This judgment reinstated the original tax assessment. The court then entered an amended final judgment finding that it was without jurisdiction to consider the merits of count II of the appellant's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Florida Dept. of Transp. v. Juliano
...on questions of law actually presented and considered on a former appeal." (Emphasis supplied.) See also Two M. Dev. Corp. v. Mikos, 578 So.2d 829, 830 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). By reaffirming the principle articulated in earlier decisions that the law of the case doctrine is limited to questions......
-
Francois v. Univ. of Miami
...of law actually presented and considered on a former appeal. ’ [bold added] (Emphasis supplied.) See also Two M. Dev. Corp. v. Mikos, 578 So.2d 829, 830 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). By reaffirming the principle articulated in earlier decisions that the law of the case doctrine is limited to question......
-
Fl–carrollwood Care Llc v. Gordon
...contrary in the mandate, on remand the trial court still had authority to consider and decide that issue. See Two M Dev. Corp. v. Mikos, 578 So.2d 829, 830–31 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) (explaining that trial court did not consider a particular issue in the original proceeding when its ruling on a ......
-
Bloco, Inc. v. Porterfield Oil Co., Inc.
...involving the same case. Analyte Diagnostics, Inc. v. D'Angelo, 792 So.2d 1271, 1272 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (citing Two M Dev. Corp. v. Mikos, 578 So.2d 829 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)). The doctrine requires that questions of law actually decided on appeal must govern the case in the same court and in......