Preview
Filing # 144147776 E-Filed 02/17/2022 04:02:54 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND
FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION
RAUL MEJIA and VIRGINIA LOPEZ, CASE NO. 18-12371 CA 34
Plaintiffs,
vs.
PEDRO GARCIA, as Property Appraiser of
Miami-Dade County Florida; LEON M.
BIEGALSKI, as the Executive Director of the
Florida Department of Revenue; MARCUS
SAIZ DE LA MORA, as Tax Collector of
Miami Dade County Florida,
Defendants.
_______________________________________/
NOTICE OF SERVING ANSWERS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ AMENDED FIRST REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS
COMES NOW, Defendant PEDRO J. GARCIA, as Property Appraiser of Miami-Dade
County, Florida by and through the undersigned attorney, pursuant to Florida Rules of Civil
Procedure, and files its Answers to Plaintiffs’ Amended First Request for Admissions.
Respectfully submitted,
GERALDINE BONZON-KEENAN
Miami-Dade County Attorney
Stephen P. Clark Center, Suite 2810
111 Northwest First Street
Miami, Florida 33128-1993
By: s/Michael J. Mastrucci
Michael J. Mastrucci
Assistant County Attorney
Florida Bar No. 86130
Email: Mastrucc@miamidade.gov
Telephone: (305) 375-5151
Facsimile: (305) 375-5634
Case No. 18-12371-CA 34
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served this 17th
day of February, 2022 via e-mail generated by the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal to: Andre A.
Gibson, Esq., 45 NE 67th Street, North Miami Beach, FL 33162, AAGibson@Gibsontaxlaw.com,
Efile@Gibsontaxlaw.com.
By: /s/ Michael J. Mastrucci
Assistant County Attorney
2
Case No. 18-12371-CA 34
ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFFS’ AMENDED FIRST REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS
1. You admit that Plaintiffs, as taxpayers, could orally report the rental of the real property
located at 201 178th Drive, unit 531, Sunny Isles, Florida 33160-2875, and identified as Parcel
No. 31-2211-039-1220 (“Subject Property”) for tax year 2013.
Response: Admitted; anyone can orally report the rental of any property.
2. You admit that as at August 29, 2013, an oral notification by the Plaintiffs, as taxpayers
and owners of the subject property, could be sufficient for the Property Appraiser to revoke the
taxpayer’s homestead exemption for tax year 2013 on the subject property.
Response: The Property Appraiser objects to this request on the grounds that it calls for
a legal conclusion, not a statement of fact. The Property Appraiser further
objects to this request on the grounds that “as at August 29, 2013” is vague
and ambiguous.
3. You admit that if the Plaintiffs notified the rental of the subject property on August 29,
2013, Plaintiffs were not required to submit a particular form nor any writing to the Property
Appraiser for the property appraiser to revoke the homestead for 2013.
Response: The Property Appraiser objects to this request on the grounds that it calls for
a legal conclusion, not a statement of fact. The Property Appraiser further
objects to this request on the grounds that “if the Plaintiffs notified the rental
of the subject property” is vague and ambiguous.
4. You admit that there is no exclusive method for the Plaintiffs, as taxpayers, to have reported
their rental of the subject property for tax year 2013.
Response: The Property Appraiser objects to this request on the grounds that “no
exclusive method” is vague and ambiguous.
5. You admit that Plaintiffs, as taxpayers were not required to exclusively report in writing
their rental of the subject property for tax year 2013.
Response: The Property Appraiser objects to this request on the grounds that it calls for
a legal conclusion, not a statement of fact.
6. You admit that the Plaintiffs could not obtain a senior exemption a senior citizen exemption
without first obtaining a homestead exemption for tax year 2013. You admit that the property
appraiser is not allowed to assess interest and penalties on the retroactive tax liens for tax years
2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016, if the failure to revoke the homestead exemption in tax year 2013
3
Case No. 18-12371-CA 34
was the result of result of a clerical mistake or an omission, on the part of the Property Appraiser.
Response: The Property Appraiser objects to this request on the grounds that it calls for
a legal conclusion, not a statement of fact. The Property Appraiser further
objects to this request on the grounds that it is compound.
7. You admit that Plaintiffs, the taxpayers, could not to apply for a new homestead exemption
for tax year 2014, 2015, or 2016 if the Property Appraiser’s records showed a homestead
exemption was already applied to the subject property.
Response: The Property Appraiser objects to this request on the grounds that it calls for
a legal conclusion, not a statement of fact. The Property Appraiser further
objects to this request on the grounds the phrase “could not to apply” is vague
and ambiguous.
8. You admit that the taxpayers were not permitted to apply for a homestead exemption for
tax years 2014, 2015, or 2016 unless the property appraiser first revoked or removed the homestead
exemption on the subject property for tax year 2013.
Response: The Property Appraiser objects to this request on the grounds that it calls for
a legal conclusion, not a statement of fact. Notwithstanding this objection,
and without waiving same, the Property Appraiser denies that it did not
permit the taxpayers to apply for a homestead exemption for tax years 2014,
2015, or 2016 unless the Property Appraiser first revoked or removed the
homestead exemption on the subject property for tax year 2013.
[SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
4
Preview
Filing # 144147776 E-Filed 02/17/2022 04:02:54 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION RAUL MEJIA and VIRGINIA LOPEZ, CASE NO. 18-12371 CA 34 Plaintiffs, vs. PEDRO GARCIA, as Property Appraiser of Miami-Dade County Florida; LEON M. BIEGALSKI, as the Executive Director of the Florida Department of Revenue; MARCUS SAIZ DE LA MORA, as Tax Collector of Miami Dade County Florida, Defendants. _______________________________________/ NOTICE OF SERVING ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFFS’ AMENDED FIRST REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS COMES NOW, Defendant PEDRO J. GARCIA, as Property Appraiser of Miami-Dade County, Florida by and through the undersigned attorney, pursuant to Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, and files its Answers to Plaintiffs’ Amended First Request for Admissions. Respectfully submitted, GERALDINE BONZON-KEENAN Miami-Dade County Attorney Stephen P. Clark Center, Suite 2810 111 Northwest First Street Miami, Florida 33128-1993 By: s/Michael J. Mastrucci Michael J. Mastrucci Assistant County Attorney Florida Bar No. 86130 Email: Mastrucc@miamidade.gov Telephone: (305) 375-5151 Facsimile: (305) 375-5634 Case No. 18-12371-CA 34 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served this 17th day of February, 2022 via e-mail generated by the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal to: Andre A. Gibson, Esq., 45 NE 67th Street, North Miami Beach, FL 33162, AAGibson@Gibsontaxlaw.com, Efile@Gibsontaxlaw.com. By: /s/ Michael J. Mastrucci Assistant County Attorney 2 Case No. 18-12371-CA 34 ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFFS’ AMENDED FIRST REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS 1. You admit that Plaintiffs, as taxpayers, could orally report the rental of the real property located at 201 178th Drive, unit 531, Sunny Isles, Florida 33160-2875, and identified as Parcel No. 31-2211-039-1220 (“Subject Property”) for tax year 2013. Response: Admitted; anyone can orally report the rental of any property. 2. You admit that as at August 29, 2013, an oral notification by the Plaintiffs, as taxpayers and owners of the subject property, could be sufficient for the Property Appraiser to revoke the taxpayer’s homestead exemption for tax year 2013 on the subject property. Response: The Property Appraiser objects to this request on the grounds that it calls for a legal conclusion, not a statement of fact. The Property Appraiser further objects to this request on the grounds that “as at August 29, 2013” is vague and ambiguous. 3. You admit that if the Plaintiffs notified the rental of the subject property on August 29, 2013, Plaintiffs were not required to submit a particular form nor any writing to the Property Appraiser for the property appraiser to revoke the homestead for 2013. Response: The Property Appraiser objects to this request on the grounds that it calls for a legal conclusion, not a statement of fact. The Property Appraiser further objects to this request on the grounds that “if the Plaintiffs notified the rental of the subject property” is vague and ambiguous. 4. You admit that there is no exclusive method for the Plaintiffs, as taxpayers, to have reported their rental of the subject property for tax year 2013. Response: The Property Appraiser objects to this request on the grounds that “no exclusive method” is vague and ambiguous. 5. You admit that Plaintiffs, as taxpayers were not required to exclusively report in writing their rental of the subject property for tax year 2013. Response: The Property Appraiser objects to this request on the grounds that it calls for a legal conclusion, not a statement of fact. 6. You admit that the Plaintiffs could not obtain a senior exemption a senior citizen exemption without first obtaining a homestead exemption for tax year 2013. You admit that the property appraiser is not allowed to assess interest and penalties on the retroactive tax liens for tax years 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016, if the failure to revoke the homestead exemption in tax year 2013 3 Case No. 18-12371-CA 34 was the result of result of a clerical mistake or an omission, on the part of the Property Appraiser. Response: The Property Appraiser objects to this request on the grounds that it calls for a legal conclusion, not a statement of fact. The Property Appraiser further objects to this request on the grounds that it is compound. 7. You admit that Plaintiffs, the taxpayers, could not to apply for a new homestead exemption for tax year 2014, 2015, or 2016 if the Property Appraiser’s records showed a homestead exemption was already applied to the subject property. Response: The Property Appraiser objects to this request on the grounds that it calls for a legal conclusion, not a statement of fact. The Property Appraiser further objects to this request on the grounds the phrase “could not to apply” is vague and ambiguous. 8. You admit that the taxpayers were not permitted to apply for a homestead exemption for tax years 2014, 2015, or 2016 unless the property appraiser first revoked or removed the homestead exemption on the subject property for tax year 2013. Response: The Property Appraiser objects to this request on the grounds that it calls for a legal conclusion, not a statement of fact. Notwithstanding this objection, and without waiving same, the Property Appraiser denies that it did not permit the taxpayers to apply for a homestead exemption for tax years 2014, 2015, or 2016 unless the Property Appraiser first revoked or removed the homestead exemption on the subject property for tax year 2013. [SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] 4