Preview
Filing # 137554034 E-Filed 10/29/2021 01:56:56 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 11TH
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION
CASE NO. 18-12371 CA 01
RAUL MEJIA, and VIRGINIA LOPEZ,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
PEDRO GARCIA, as Property Appraiser
of Miami-Dade County, Florida; LEON M.
BIEGALSKI, as Executive Director of the
Florida Department of Revenue; MARCUS
SAIZ DE LA MORA, as Tax Collector of
Miami-Dade County, Florida,
Defendants.
______________________________________/
COUNTY DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER AND DEFENSES TO SECOND AMENDED
COMPLAINT, AND MOTIONS TO STRIKE
Defendants PEDRO GARCIA, as Property Appraiser of Miami-Dade County, Florida (the
“Property Appraiser”), and MARCUS SAIZ DE LA MORA, as Tax Collector of Miami-Dade
County, Florida (the “Tax Collector,” and collectively, the “County Defendants”), by and through
their undersigned counsel, hereby answer the Third Amended Complaint (the “Complaint”) filed
by Plaintiffs/Taxpayers, RAUL MEJIA and VIRGINIA LOPEZ, as follows:
ANSWER
1. Admitted.
2. Without knowledge and thereby denied.
3. Admitted.
4. Admitted.
Case No. 18-12371 CA 01
5. Admitted.
6. Admitted.
7. Admitted.
8. Without knowledge and thereby denied.
9. Without knowledge and thereby denied.
10. Admitted that Plaintiffs applied for and received a homestead exemption on the
Subject Property in 2005 which was automatically renewed through 2012. Denied as to the
remaining allegations.
11. Denied.
12. Admitted.
13. Exhibit C speaks for itself. Denied as to the remaining allegations.
14. Admitted.
15. Admitted that the Property Appraiser’s basis for removal of homestead exemption
from 2013-16 was Plaintiffs’ rental of the Subject Property in 2013 and subsequent failure to
reapply for homestead exemption after the rental. Denied as to the remaining allegations.
16. Denied.
17. Denied.
18. Denied.
19. Admitted, with the exception of the allegation that the Property Appraiser
administers tax collection. Exhibit J speaks for itself.
20. Denied.
21. Without knowledge and thereby denied.
22. Denied that on or about August 29, 2013 MEJIA notified the Property Appraiser of
2
Case No. 18-12371 CA 01
the loss of the 2013 homestead exemption and sought to apply for a 2014 homestead exemption
on the Subject Property. Admitted as to the remaining allegations.
23. Denied.
24. Without knowledge and thereby denied.
25. Denied.
26. Without knowledge and thereby denied.
27. Denied.
28. Denied.
29. Admitted that the Property Appraiser has filed a lien against the Subject Property
for improper receipt of a homestead exemption. Denied as to the remaining allegations.
30. Denied.
31. Denied.
32. Without knowledge and thereby denied.
33. Denied.
34. Fla. Stat. § 86.011 speaks for itself.
35. Fla. Stat. § 86.051 speaks for itself.
36. Fla. Stat. § 86.111 speaks for itself.
37. Fla. Stat. § 86.101 speaks for itself.
38. Denied.
39.
a. Admitted.
b. Admitted that payments were made for tax years 2014-16. Exhibit F speaks for
itself. Without knowledge and thereby denied as to the remaining allegations.
3
Case No. 18-12371 CA 01
c. Admitted. Exhibit G speaks for itself.
40. As to the first sentence, without knowledge and thereby denied. As to the second
sentence, Exhibit K speaks for itself.
41. Admitted.
42. Without knowledge and thereby denied.
43. County Defendants reassert and reaffirm their above responses to the allegations in
paragraphs 1 through 40 as if fully set forth herein.
44. Admitted. The referenced exhibits speak for themselves.
45. Admitted. The referenced exhibits speak for themselves.
46. Admitted.
47. Fla. Stat. § 196.161 speaks for itself.
48. The statutory and legal authorities cited therein speak for themselves.
49. Without knowledge and thereby denied.
50. Denied.
51. Denied.
52. County Defendants reassert and reaffirm their above responses to the allegations in
paragraphs 1 through 42 as if fully set forth herein.
53. Admitted. The referenced exhibits speak for themselves.
54. Fla. Stat. § 196.161 speaks for itself.
55. The statutory and legal authorities cited therein speak for themselves.
56. Fla. Stat. § 196.011 speaks for itself.
57. Without knowledge and thereby denied.
58. Admitted that the Property Appraiser’s basis for removal of homestead exemption
4
Case No. 18-12371 CA 01
from 2013-16 was Plaintiffs’ rental of the Subject Property in 2013 and subsequent failure to
reapply for homestead exemption after the rental. Denied as to the remaining allegations. Exhibits
A and B speak for themselves.
59. Denied.
60. Denied.
61. Denied.
62. Denied.
63. Fla. Stat. § 196.161 speaks for itself.
64. Denied. Further, Fla. Stat. § 196.161 speaks for itself.
65. The legal authority cited therein speaks for itself.
66. Denied. Further, Fla. Stat. § 196.161 speaks for itself.
67. Denied.
68. Fla. Stat. § 196.161 speaks for itself.
69. Fla. Stat. § 196.161 speaks for itself.
70. Denied.
71. Denied.
72. Denied.
73. Denied.
74. Denied. Further, Fla. Stat. § 196.161 speaks for itself.
75. County Defendants reassert and reaffirm their above responses to the allegations in
paragraphs 1 through 42 as if fully set forth herein.
76. Fla. Stat. § 196.161 speaks for itself.
77. Fla. Stat. § 193.1554 speaks for itself.
5
Case No. 18-12371 CA 01
78. Denied.
79. Denied.
80. Denied.
81. County Defendants reassert and reaffirm their above responses to the allegations in
paragraphs 1 through 42 as if fully set forth herein.
82. Denied.
83. Admitted.
84. Art. VII, § 4(d)(1), Fla. Const., speaks for itself.
85. Art. VII, § 4(d)(8), Fla. Const., speaks for itself.
86. Art. VII, § 4(d)(8)(a)(1), Fla. Const., speaks for itself.
87. Denied.
88. Denied.
DEFENSES
1. Plaintiffs are not legally entitled to a homestead exemption on the Subject Property
for tax years 2013-16 because Plaintiffs rented the Subject Property in 2013 and subsequently
failed to reapply for homestead exemption for either tax year 2014, 2015 or 2016. See Zingale v.
Powell, 885 So. 2d 277, 285 (Fla. 2004) (holding that a successful application for homestead tax
exemption is necessary to obtain the exemption); Horne v. Markham, 288 So. 2d 196 (Fla. 1973)
(holding that a taxpayer’s right to claim the homestead exemption is not self-executing, since the
exemption is conditioned upon establishment of the right in the manner prescribed by law); §
196.011(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2008) (“Failure to make application . . . shall constitute a waiver
of the exemption privilege for that year.”).
2. Plaintiffs are not entitled to a portability credit on the Subject Property under article
6
Case No. 18-12371 CA 01
VII, section 4(d) of the Florida Constitution or its implementing legislation, section 193.155(8) of
the Florida Statutes, because as explained above, Plaintiffs are not legally entitled to a homestead
exemption on the Subject Property for tax years 2013-16, and establishment of a new homestead
exemption is a prerequisite to receipt of the portability credit. See Art. VII, § 4(d), Fla. Const.; §
193.155(8), Fla. Stat. Further, Plaintiffs did not specifically apply for a portability credit as
required under Florida law. See § 193.155(8)(h), Fla. Stat.
MOTION TO STRIKE PRAYER FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
County Defendants move to strike Plaintiffs’ prayer for attorneys’ fees, as such fees are
not authorized under applicable Florida law. Further, since state courts may not grant relief under
42 U.S.C. § 1983, attorney’s fees may not be awarded in state court actions involving state tax matters
under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. See Nat’l Private Truck Council, Inc., 515 U.S. at 592.
MOTION TO STRIKE DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
County Defendants move to strike Plaintiffs’ demand for trial by jury, as Plaintiffs are not
entitled to trial by jury in cases challenging ad valorem tax assessments. See Robbins v. Section 3
Prop. Corp., 609 So. 2d 670, 671 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); approved, 632 So. 2d 596 (Fla. 1993).
7
Case No. 18-12371 CA 01
WHEREFORE, County Defendants respectfully request that this Court dismiss the
Complaint or enter judgment in their favor, award costs incurred in defending this action, and grant
any other relief it deems just and proper.
Respectfully submitted,
GERALDINE BONZON-KEENAN
Miami-Dade County Attorney
Stephen P. Clark Center
111 N.W. 1st Street, Suite 2810
Miami, FL 33128-1993
By: s/Michael J. Mastrucci
Assistant County Attorney
Florida Bar No. 86130
Telephone: (305) 375-5151
Facsimilie: (305) 375-5611
Email: mastrucc@miamidade.gov
Wilma.morillo@miamidade.gov
8
Case No. 18-12371 CA 01
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served this 29th
day of October, 2021 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; and Timothy E. Dennis, Esq., Chief Assistant Attorney General, Office
of the Attorney General, Revenue Litigation Bureau, PL-01, The Capitol, Tallahassee, FL 32399,
Timothy.Dennis@myfloridalegal.com; Rebecca.Padgett@myfloridalegal.com;
jon.annette@myfloridalegal.com.
s/Michael J. Mastrucci
Assistant County Attorney
9
Preview
Filing # 137554034 E-Filed 10/29/2021 01:56:56 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 11TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION CASE NO. 18-12371 CA 01 RAUL MEJIA, and VIRGINIA LOPEZ, Plaintiffs, vs. PEDRO GARCIA, as Property Appraiser of Miami-Dade County, Florida; LEON M. BIEGALSKI, as Executive Director of the Florida Department of Revenue; MARCUS SAIZ DE LA MORA, as Tax Collector of Miami-Dade County, Florida, Defendants. ______________________________________/ COUNTY DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER AND DEFENSES TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT, AND MOTIONS TO STRIKE Defendants PEDRO GARCIA, as Property Appraiser of Miami-Dade County, Florida (the “Property Appraiser”), and MARCUS SAIZ DE LA MORA, as Tax Collector of Miami-Dade County, Florida (the “Tax Collector,” and collectively, the “County Defendants”), by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby answer the Third Amended Complaint (the “Complaint”) filed by Plaintiffs/Taxpayers, RAUL MEJIA and VIRGINIA LOPEZ, as follows: ANSWER 1. Admitted. 2. Without knowledge and thereby denied. 3. Admitted. 4. Admitted. Case No. 18-12371 CA 01 5. Admitted. 6. Admitted. 7. Admitted. 8. Without knowledge and thereby denied. 9. Without knowledge and thereby denied. 10. Admitted that Plaintiffs applied for and received a homestead exemption on the Subject Property in 2005 which was automatically renewed through 2012. Denied as to the remaining allegations. 11. Denied. 12. Admitted. 13. Exhibit C speaks for itself. Denied as to the remaining allegations. 14. Admitted. 15. Admitted that the Property Appraiser’s basis for removal of homestead exemption from 2013-16 was Plaintiffs’ rental of the Subject Property in 2013 and subsequent failure to reapply for homestead exemption after the rental. Denied as to the remaining allegations. 16. Denied. 17. Denied. 18. Denied. 19. Admitted, with the exception of the allegation that the Property Appraiser administers tax collection. Exhibit J speaks for itself. 20. Denied. 21. Without knowledge and thereby denied. 22. Denied that on or about August 29, 2013 MEJIA notified the Property Appraiser of 2 Case No. 18-12371 CA 01 the loss of the 2013 homestead exemption and sought to apply for a 2014 homestead exemption on the Subject Property. Admitted as to the remaining allegations. 23. Denied. 24. Without knowledge and thereby denied. 25. Denied. 26. Without knowledge and thereby denied. 27. Denied. 28. Denied. 29. Admitted that the Property Appraiser has filed a lien against the Subject Property for improper receipt of a homestead exemption. Denied as to the remaining allegations. 30. Denied. 31. Denied. 32. Without knowledge and thereby denied. 33. Denied. 34. Fla. Stat. § 86.011 speaks for itself. 35. Fla. Stat. § 86.051 speaks for itself. 36. Fla. Stat. § 86.111 speaks for itself. 37. Fla. Stat. § 86.101 speaks for itself. 38. Denied. 39. a. Admitted. b. Admitted that payments were made for tax years 2014-16. Exhibit F speaks for itself. Without knowledge and thereby denied as to the remaining allegations. 3 Case No. 18-12371 CA 01 c. Admitted. Exhibit G speaks for itself. 40. As to the first sentence, without knowledge and thereby denied. As to the second sentence, Exhibit K speaks for itself. 41. Admitted. 42. Without knowledge and thereby denied. 43. County Defendants reassert and reaffirm their above responses to the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 40 as if fully set forth herein. 44. Admitted. The referenced exhibits speak for themselves. 45. Admitted. The referenced exhibits speak for themselves. 46. Admitted. 47. Fla. Stat. § 196.161 speaks for itself. 48. The statutory and legal authorities cited therein speak for themselves. 49. Without knowledge and thereby denied. 50. Denied. 51. Denied. 52. County Defendants reassert and reaffirm their above responses to the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 42 as if fully set forth herein. 53. Admitted. The referenced exhibits speak for themselves. 54. Fla. Stat. § 196.161 speaks for itself. 55. The statutory and legal authorities cited therein speak for themselves. 56. Fla. Stat. § 196.011 speaks for itself. 57. Without knowledge and thereby denied. 58. Admitted that the Property Appraiser’s basis for removal of homestead exemption 4 Case No. 18-12371 CA 01 from 2013-16 was Plaintiffs’ rental of the Subject Property in 2013 and subsequent failure to reapply for homestead exemption after the rental. Denied as to the remaining allegations. Exhibits A and B speak for themselves. 59. Denied. 60. Denied. 61. Denied. 62. Denied. 63. Fla. Stat. § 196.161 speaks for itself. 64. Denied. Further, Fla. Stat. § 196.161 speaks for itself. 65. The legal authority cited therein speaks for itself. 66. Denied. Further, Fla. Stat. § 196.161 speaks for itself. 67. Denied. 68. Fla. Stat. § 196.161 speaks for itself. 69. Fla. Stat. § 196.161 speaks for itself. 70. Denied. 71. Denied. 72. Denied. 73. Denied. 74. Denied. Further, Fla. Stat. § 196.161 speaks for itself. 75. County Defendants reassert and reaffirm their above responses to the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 42 as if fully set forth herein. 76. Fla. Stat. § 196.161 speaks for itself. 77. Fla. Stat. § 193.1554 speaks for itself. 5 Case No. 18-12371 CA 01 78. Denied. 79. Denied. 80. Denied. 81. County Defendants reassert and reaffirm their above responses to the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 42 as if fully set forth herein. 82. Denied. 83. Admitted. 84. Art. VII, § 4(d)(1), Fla. Const., speaks for itself. 85. Art. VII, § 4(d)(8), Fla. Const., speaks for itself. 86. Art. VII, § 4(d)(8)(a)(1), Fla. Const., speaks for itself. 87. Denied. 88. Denied. DEFENSES 1. Plaintiffs are not legally entitled to a homestead exemption on the Subject Property for tax years 2013-16 because Plaintiffs rented the Subject Property in 2013 and subsequently failed to reapply for homestead exemption for either tax year 2014, 2015 or 2016. See Zingale v. Powell, 885 So. 2d 277, 285 (Fla. 2004) (holding that a successful application for homestead tax exemption is necessary to obtain the exemption); Horne v. Markham, 288 So. 2d 196 (Fla. 1973) (holding that a taxpayer’s right to claim the homestead exemption is not self-executing, since the exemption is conditioned upon establishment of the right in the manner prescribed by law); § 196.011(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2008) (“Failure to make application . . . shall constitute a waiver of the exemption privilege for that year.”). 2. Plaintiffs are not entitled to a portability credit on the Subject Property under article 6 Case No. 18-12371 CA 01 VII, section 4(d) of the Florida Constitution or its implementing legislation, section 193.155(8) of the Florida Statutes, because as explained above, Plaintiffs are not legally entitled to a homestead exemption on the Subject Property for tax years 2013-16, and establishment of a new homestead exemption is a prerequisite to receipt of the portability credit. See Art. VII, § 4(d), Fla. Const.; § 193.155(8), Fla. Stat. Further, Plaintiffs did not specifically apply for a portability credit as required under Florida law. See § 193.155(8)(h), Fla. Stat. MOTION TO STRIKE PRAYER FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES County Defendants move to strike Plaintiffs’ prayer for attorneys’ fees, as such fees are not authorized under applicable Florida law. Further, since state courts may not grant relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, attorney’s fees may not be awarded in state court actions involving state tax matters under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. See Nat’l Private Truck Council, Inc., 515 U.S. at 592. MOTION TO STRIKE DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL County Defendants move to strike Plaintiffs’ demand for trial by jury, as Plaintiffs are not entitled to trial by jury in cases challenging ad valorem tax assessments. See Robbins v. Section 3 Prop. Corp., 609 So. 2d 670, 671 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); approved, 632 So. 2d 596 (Fla. 1993). 7 Case No. 18-12371 CA 01 WHEREFORE, County Defendants respectfully request that this Court dismiss the Complaint or enter judgment in their favor, award costs incurred in defending this action, and grant any other relief it deems just and proper. Respectfully submitted, GERALDINE BONZON-KEENAN Miami-Dade County Attorney Stephen P. Clark Center 111 N.W. 1st Street, Suite 2810 Miami, FL 33128-1993 By: s/Michael J. Mastrucci Assistant County Attorney Florida Bar No. 86130 Telephone: (305) 375-5151 Facsimilie: (305) 375-5611 Email: mastrucc@miamidade.gov Wilma.morillo@miamidade.gov 8 Case No. 18-12371 CA 01 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served this 29th day of October, 2021 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; and Timothy E. Dennis, Esq., Chief Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, Revenue Litigation Bureau, PL-01, The Capitol, Tallahassee, FL 32399, Timothy.Dennis@myfloridalegal.com; Rebecca.Padgett@myfloridalegal.com; jon.annette@myfloridalegal.com. s/Michael J. Mastrucci Assistant County Attorney 9