Party Discovery: RAUL MEJIA ET AL VS PEDRO LOPEZ (PROPERTY APPRAISER) ET AL

On April 17, 2018 a Party Discovery was filed involving a dispute between Lopez, Virginia, Mejia, Raul, and Biegalski, De La Mora, Lopez, for Declaratory Judgment in the District Court of Miami-Dade County.

Preview
Filing # 114996222 E-Filed 10/14/2020 09:50:42 PM

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA

RAUL MEJIA, and VIRGINIA LOPEZ

Plaintiffs,
CASE NO.: 2018-12371-CA
vs. DIVISION:

PEDRO GARCIA, as Property Appraiser of
Miami Dade County Florida; LEON M.
BIEGALSKI, as Executive Director of
Florida Department of Revenue; MARCUS
SAIZ DE LA MORA, as Tax Collector of
Miami Dade County, Florida

Defendants.
______________________________________________/

PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO PROPERTY APPRAISER’S
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION

Plaintiffs, VIRGINIA LOPEZ (“LOPEZ”) and RAUL MEJIA (“MEJIA”), (hereinafter

“LOPEZ” and “MEJIA” are referred to as “Plaintiffs”) by and through its attorneys’ files this

Response and Objections to Defendant’s, PROPERTY APPRAISER of Miami-Dade County

PROPERTY APPRAISER, (Hereinafter “PROPERTY APPRAISER”), Request for Production

of Documents and states as follows:

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. By making the accompanying responses and objections to PROPERTY APPRAISER’s
requests for documents, PLAINTIFFS do not waive, and hereby expressly reserves,
its right to assert any and all objections as to the admissibility of such responses into
evidence in this action, or in any other proceedings, on any and all grounds including,
but not limited to, competency, relevancy, materiality, and privilege. Further,
PLAINTIFFS make the responses and objections herein without in any way implying
that it considers the requests and responses to the requests, to be relevant or material
to the subject matter of this action.

2. PLAINTIFFS will produce responsive documents only to the extent that such
documents are in the possession, custody, or control of the PLAINTIFFS, as set forth
in the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. PLAINTIFFS's possession, custody, or control
does not include any constructive possession that may be conferred by PLAINTIFFS's
right or power to compel the production of documents from third parties or to request
their production from other parties.

Page 1 of 12
3. PLAINTIFFS expressly reserve the right to supplement, clarify, revise, or correct any
or all of the responses and objections herein, and to assert additional objections or
privileges, in one or more subsequent supplemental response(s).

4. Publicly available documents including, but not limited to, recorded documents, court
papers, and documents available on the Internet, might not be produced.

GENERAL OBJECTIONS

5. PLAINTIFFS objects to each instruction, definition, and document request to the
extent that it purports to impose any requirement or discovery obligation greater than
or different from those under the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure and the applicable
Rules and Orders of the Court.

6. PLAINTIFFS objects to each document request that is overly broad, unduly
burdensome, or not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence. Specifically, Property Appraiser’s request for documents related to tax years
2011 through 2013 because none of these years form a part of Plaintiff’s claim nor the
Property Appraiser’s defenses and as such are outside of the scope of permissible
discovery as defined by Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(b)(1).

7. PLAINTIFFS objects to each document request to the extent that it seeks information
protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, deliberative process
privilege, attorney work product doctrine, or any other applicable privilege. Should
any such disclosure by PLAINTIFFS occur, it is inadvertent and shall not constitute
a waiver of any privilege.

8. PLAINTIFFS objects to PROPERTY APPRAISER’s request for documents that call
for the production of documents and information that were produced to the
PROPERTY APPRAISER by other third parties.

9. PLAINTIFFS objects to PROPERTY APPRAISER’s request documents that call for
speculation and/or seeks legal conclusion or questions of pure law.

10. To the extent any of PROPERTY APPRAISER’s request for production seek answers
that include expert material, including but not limited to test results, appraisal
materials, repairs estimate, etc. PLAINTIFFS objects to any such requests as
premature and expressly reserves the right to supplement, clarify, revise, or correct
any or all responses to such requests, and to assert additional objections or privileges,
in one or more subsequent supplemental response(s) in accordance with the time
period for exchanging expert reports set by the Court.

11. PLAINTIFFS incorporate by reference every general objection set forth above into
each specific response set forth below. A specific response may repeat a general
objection for emphasis or some other reason. The failure to include any general
objection in any specific response does not waive any general objection to that request.
Moreover, PLAINTIFFS do not waive its right to amend its responses.

Page 2 of 12
OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO DOCUMENT REQUESTS

1. Your complete federal income tax returns with corresponding schedule E’s (as
mentioned above, you may redact privileged or confidential information—the request
is intended to see the name and address used by you as well as any rental income
reported).

Objection: any and all facts related to tax years 2011 through 2013 are irrelevant to
this action. The Property appraiser reversed their revocation of homestead for 2011
and 2012 and tax year 2013 is specifically not in dispute. As such they are not part of
the Plaintiff’s claim in this action. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.340(b) limits the scope of discovery
on interrogatories “to any matters that can be inquired into under rule 1.280 (b), and
the answers may be used to the extent permitted by the rules of evidence except as
otherwise provided in this subdivision.” Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(b) provides,
(b) Scope of Discovery. --Unless otherwise limited by order of the court
in accordance with these rules, the scope of discovery is as follows:
(1) In General. --Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not
privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter of the pending action,
whether it relates to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or
the claim or defense of any other party,[]”
There is no claim or defense as it related to tax year 2011 through 2013 and as such,
discovery thereon are foreclosed.

Response: Plaintiffs have not filed a tax return for tax years 2014 through 2016.

2. All federal income tax returns signed by you for any trust or business entity for which
you have an interest or responsibility.

Response: Plaintiffs do not have entities or trusts for which a return was necessary.

Page 3 of 12
3. All bills addressed to you by name at the Subject Property, including but not limited
to electricity, water, waste, sewerage, cable television, mortgage, condominium fees,
telephone, cell phone, credit card, internet service, professional or license fees,
property insurance, or flood insurance.

Response: Plaintiffs have attached all documents in their possession, custody and/or
control at Bate No. 631-660

4. Your bank statements from any bank, credit union, or other lending institution for
withdrawals, deposits, checking accounts, cancelled checks, or any other matters.

Page 4 of 12
Response: Plaintiffs the only bank statements in Plaintiffs’ possession custody and/or
control responsive to tax years 2014 through 2016 plaintiffs are attached at Bate No.
664-834, and 871-1004

5. Your Form SSA-1099 Social Security Benefit Statements.

Moreover, Plaintiffs did not seek nor obtained a senior exemption (the only income-
based exemption) for tax years 2011 and 2012. The first instance was 2013 and that
which was revoked and not being contested.

Response: The Plaintiffs have provided the property appraiser with their SSA
statements previously in person when they visited the property appraiser’s office in
their attempt to resolve this issues attendant to this action prior to retaining counsel.
The property appraiser’s request for these documents is purely an attempt to harass,
oppress, and undue burden Plaintiff with an overly broad and repetitive request.
Plaintiffs have attached copies of the statements for tax years 2014 through 2016
which are in their possession, custody and/or control at Bate No. 663, 841-847, 849-
869.

6. Deeds transferring property to or from you.

Objection: All deeds transferring the subject property to or from Plaintiffs is a matter
of public record to which the Property Appraiser has direct access in determining the
persons entitled to claim tax benefits. The property appraiser’s request for these
documents is purely an attempt to harass, oppress, and undue burden Plaintiff with
an overly broad and repetitive request.

7. All cards which identify you by name and/or address, including but not limited to
driver’s license, voter’s registration card, vehicle registration cards, vehicle insurance
cards, health insurance cards, credit cards, debit cards, or business cards.

Response: Plaintiffs have attached all documents in their possession custody and/or
control at Bate No. 619-630

Page 5 of 12
8. All documents reflecting any and all licenses held by you including, but not limited to
driver’s license, notary public license, contractor’s license, real estate agent or broker’s
license, hunting license, marriage license, or license or permit to carry a concealed
weapon.

Response: Plaintiffs have attached all documents in their possession custody and/or
control at Bate No. 619-630

9. Applications for homestead exemption on the Subject Property.

Response/Objection: The property appraiser has these documents in its possession
custody and or control. Moreover, as for the homestead application which the
Property Appraiser refused and/or failed to process on August 29, 2013, the plaintiff’s
state:

On August 29, 2013, I visited the Property Appraiser’s office to re-apply for our
homestead exemption because (and I informed them) that me and my wife were out
of the country for about a year, and that the property was rented during our absence.
The person with whom I met looked at property information in the computer and
informed me that the property still had homestead exemption and that I did not need
to do anything. After further discussion, she inquired about and I told her my age.
She informed me that I was eligible for a senior exemption if I had the documents
proving my income. Since I went prepared with the necessary documents to apply for
the homestead exemption, I had my social security statements with me and provided
them to her. She completed an application form which I then signed.

If the person who attended to me had followed my request, based on what the property
appraiser is now telling me, she should have revoked the exemption for 2013, and
taken my application for 2014, and we would never have lost our exemptions for 2014-
2016. Also, in order to apply for a senior exemption, we were required to have a
homestead exemption, so if the person who attended to me had done what she was
supposed to have done – based on the property appraiser’s claims that I was required
to relinquish the homestead for 2013 and reapply for the exemption for 2014 – I would
have submitted the homestead application and the senior exemption at the same time.
I came prepared to apply for a homestead exemption and was prevented from doing
so.

Plaintiffs, including Mr. Mejia does not speak English with a degree of fluency to
permit him have completed the application, so when he visited the property
appraiser’s office on August 29, 2013, he was relying upon the staff to assist him with
the homestead application. Instead they assisted him with a senior exemption
application after informing him that he did not need to do anything about the
homestead exemption. As such, it is not the Plaintiffs’ fault why this was not done
and why there is no application of record.

Page 6 of 12
10. Applications for senior exemption under section 196.075, Florida Statutes, on the
Subject Property.

Objection: This request, while couched as a request for factual information, is
actually a request for a legal answer. The request cannot be answered unless the
Plaintiffs know the law (statute) so as to form an understanding of the law. Plaintiffs
do not know the law and rely upon their attorney for an explanation of the meaning
and implication of these statutes. Any understanding they have of section 196.075 is
solely gained from my discussions with my counsel and as such it is privileged.

Moreover, Plaintiffs did not seek nor obtained a senior exemption for tax years 2011
and 2012. The first instance was sought on August 29, 2013 which was revoked and
not being contested. The Property appraiser retroactively revoked the senior
exemption for tax year 2013 through 2016 and the first instance they permitted
Plaintiffs to reapply for the exemption was in 2017. The property appraiser has these
documents in its possession custody and or control. Moreover, as for the homestead
application for tax year 2014 which the Property Appraiser refused and/or failed to
process on August 29, 2013, the plaintiff’s state:

On August 29, 2013, Mr. Mejia visited the Property Appraiser’s office to re-apply for
our homestead exemption because (and Mr. Mejia informed them) that he and his
spouse were out of the country for about a year, and that the property was rented
during our absence. The person with whom he met looked at property information in
the computer and informed me that the property still had homestead exemption and
that he did not need to do anything. After further discussion, she inquired about and
he told her his age. She informed him that he was eligible for a senior exemption if
he had the documents proving his income. Since he went prepared with the necessary
documents to apply for the homestead exemption, he had his social security
statements with me and provided them to her. She completed an application form
which Mr. Mejia then signed.

If the person who attended to me had followed my request, based on what the property
appraiser is now telling me, she should have revoked the exemption for 2013, and
taken my application for 2014, and we would never have lost our exemptions for 2014-
2016. Also, in order to apply for a senior exemption, we were required to have a
homestead exemption, so if the person who attended to me had done what she was
supposed to have done – based on the property appraiser’s claims that he was required
to relinquish the homestead for 2013 and reapply for the exemption for 2014 – he
would have submitted the homestead application and the senior exemption at the
same time. He came prepared to apply for a homestead exemption and was prevented
from doing so.

Page 7 of 12
homestead exemption. As such, it is not the Plaintiffs’ fault why this was not done
and why there is no application of record.

Answer: Without waiving my objection Plaintiffs have provided the property
appraiser with all the records in our possession custody and control that is responsive
to this request were previously produced to the property appraiser incident to take
the depositions of the Property Appraiser’s employees and agents in a binder
numbered Bate No. 1 through 618.
In particular, see Bate Stamp 23-25 which shows that I visited the Property
Appraiser’s office on August 29, 2013 when the clerk took my application for senior
exemption instead of following your procedures to revoke the 2013 homestead and
take a new application for 2014 – with the senior exemption and portability
application.

11. Applications for Transfer of Homestead Assessment Difference (a/k/a “Portability”)
either to or from the Subject Property.

Objection: Plaintiffs did not seek nor obtained a senior exemption for tax years 2011
and 2012. The first instance was sought on August 29, 2013 which was revoked and
not being contested. The Property appraiser retroactively revoked the senior
exemption for tax year 2013 through 2016 and the first instance they permitted
Plaintiffs to reapply for the exemption was in 2017. The property appraiser has these
documents in its possession custody and or control. Moreover, as for the homestead
application for tax year 2014 which the Property Appraiser refused and/or failed to
process on August 29, 2013, the plaintiff’s state:

If the person who attended to me had followed my request, based on what the property
appraiser is now telling me, she should have revoked the exemption for 2013, and
taken my application for 2014, and we would never have lost our exemptions for 2014-
2016. Also, in order to apply for a senior exemption, we were required to have a
homestead exemption, so if the person who attended to me had done what she was
supposed to have done – based on the property appraiser’s claims that he was required
to relinquish the homestead for 2013 and reapply for the exemption for 2014 – he
would have submitted the homestead application and the senior exemption at the
same time. He came prepared to apply for a homestead exemption and was prevented
from doing so.

Page 8 of 12
Plaintiffs, including Mr. Mejia does not speak English with a degree of fluency to
permit him have completed the application, so when he visited the property
appraiser’s office on August 29, 2013, he was relying upon the staff to assist him with
the homestead application. Instead they assisted him with a senior exemption
application after informing him that he did not need to do anything about the
homestead exemption. As such, it is not the Plaintiffs’ fault why this was not done
and why there is no application of record.

Response: Without waiving my objection Plaintiffs have provided the property
appraiser with all the records in their possession custody and control through that
date. In particular, see Bate Stamp 23-25 which shows that Mr. Mejia visited the
Property Appraiser’s office on August 29, 2013 when the clerk took my application for
senior exemption instead of following your procedures to revoke the 2013 homestead
and take a new application for 2014 – with the senior exemption and portability
application.

12. All rental or lease agreements involving the Subject Property entered into by yourself
or by any business entity in which you have an interest.

Objection: any and all documents related to tax years 2011 through 2013 are
irrelevant to this action. The Property appraiser reversed their revocation of
homestead for 2011 and 2012 and tax year 2013 is specifically not in dispute. As such
they are not part of the Plaintiff’s claim in this action. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(b) provides,
(b) Scope of Discovery. --Unless otherwise limited by order of the court
in accordance with these rules, the scope of discovery is as follows:
(1) In General. --Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not
privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter of the pending action,
whether it relates to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or
the claim or defense of any other party,[]”
There is no claim or defense as it related to tax year 2011 through 2013 and as such,
discovery thereon are foreclosed.

Moreover, Plaintiffs provided Property Appraiser with a copy of the lease agreement
which affected tax year 2013 and as such, this request is sought purely to harass,
oppress, and unduly burden Plaintiff with an overly broad and repetitive request.

Response: All documents responsive to this request were previously produced to the
property appraiser incident to taking the depositions of the Property Appraiser’s
employees and agents in a binder numbered Bate No. 1 through 618.

13. Any listings, quotes, or other written offers to lease or sell the Subject Property,
including any listings on a Multiple Listing Service (MLS).

Objection: any and all documents related to tax years 2011 through 2013 are
irrelevant to this action. The Property appraiser reversed their revocation of

Page 9 of 12
homestead for 2011 and 2012 and tax year 2013 is specifically not in dispute. As such
they are not part of the Plaintiff’s claim in this action. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(b) provides,
(b) Scope of Discovery. --Unless otherwise limited by order of the court
in accordance with these rules, the scope of discovery is as follows:
(1) In General. --Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not
privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter of the pending action,
whether it relates to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or
the claim or defense of any other party,[]”
There is no claim or defense as it related to tax year 2011 through 2013 and as such,
discovery thereon are foreclosed.

Response: Plaintiffs do not have any documents responsive to this request within
their possession, custody and/or control.

14. Mortgage and/or home equity loan statements, and all other instruments, such as loan
applications, executed in connection with financing on the Subject Property.

This request seeks documents that are wholly irrelevant to establish whether the
Plaintiffs are entitled to any of the exemptions or tax benefits at issue in the captioned
case. Evidence of all mortgage encumbering the subject property are a matter of
public record which the property may obtain freely if they require. Plaintiffs however
objects to providing mortgage statement and mortgage applications because they have
no relevance to the captioned case. The property appraiser’s request for these
documents is purely an attempt to harass, oppress, and undue burden Plaintiff with
an overly broad and repetitive request.

15. All documents involving any transfer of the Subject Property and the notes,
agreements, and other documents reflecting the agreements upon which such
transfers were based.

Objection: All documents evidencing transfers of the subject property to or from
Plaintiffs is a matter of public record to which the Property Appraiser has direct access

Page 10 of 12
in determining the persons entitled to claim tax benefits. The property appraiser’s
request for these documents is purely an attempt to harass, oppress, and undue
burden Plaintiff with an overly broad and repetitive request.

16. Any and all letters, correspondence, memoranda, notices, e-mails, and other
documents received from and/or sent to the Miami-Dade County Property Appraiser’s
Office.

Objection: All documents responsive to this request were previously produced to the
property appraiser incident to take the depositions of the Property Appraiser’s
employees and agents in a binder numbered Bate No. 1 through 618.

17. All life insurance policies and certificates on your life as well as all premium notices,
beneficiary designation forms and other records and documents received or compiled
by you in connection with any life insurance of which you are the owner and/or the
insured person. If you have changed the beneficiary of any of your life insurance,
produce all forms reflecting these changes.

This request seeks documents that are wholly irrelevant to establish whether the
Plaintiffs are entitled to any of the exemptions or tax benefits at issue in the captioned
case. Whether Plaintiffs have life insurance policies has nothing to do with the
entitlement to an exemption and as such objects to providing the same. The property
appraiser’s request for these documents is purely an attempt to harass, oppress, and
undue burden Plaintiff with an overly broad and repetitive request.

Response: without waiving the foregoing objection, none as it relates to tax years 2014
through 2016.

18. All documents reflecting the location where your dependent children are registered
for school.

Response: Plaintiffs have no dependent children or school age.

Page 11 of 12
André Gibson, Chartered

/s/ André A. Gibson
André A. Gibson
Florida Bar Number: 0635529
Attorney for Plaintiffs Raul Mejia and Virginia Lopez
45 NE 67th Street,
North Miami Beach, FL 33162
Telephone: (305) 652-4900
Fax: (305) 808-3495
E-Mail: AAGibson@Gibsontaxlaw.com
Secondary E-Mail: Efile@Gibsontaxlaw.com

Case Info

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

October 14, 2020

Case Filing Date

April 17, 2018

County

Parties

BIEGALSKI (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR), LEON M Defendant
DE LA MORA (TAX COLLECTOR), MARCUS SAIZ Defendant
Dennis, Timothy E. Attorney for the Defendant
Gibson, Andre A Attorney for the Plaintiff
LOPEZ (PROPERTY APPRAISER), PEDRO Defendant
Lopez, Virginia Plaintiff
Mastrucci, Michael J (Asst. County Atty) Attorney for the Defendant
MEJIA, RAUL Plaintiff
Party Name Party Description
Jane Mastrucci Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Andrea Gibson Attorney

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.