Preview
Filing # 85473381 E-Filed 02/25/2019 06:53:45 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 117
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 Second 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 AppraiserCase No. 18-12371 CA 01
of 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 remaining40.
41.
Case No. 18-12371 CA 01
allegations.
c. Admitted. Exhibit G speaks for itself.
Without knowledge and thereby denied.
County Defendants reassert and reaffirm their above responses to the allegations
in paragraphs 1 through 40 as if fully set forth herein.
42.
43
44,
45
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
Admitted. The referenced exhibits speak for themselves.
Admitted. The referenced exhibits speak for themselves.
Admitted
Fla. Stat. § 196.161 speaks for itself.
The statutory and legal authorities cited therein speak for themselves.
Without knowledge and thereby denied.
Denied.
Denied.
County Defendants reassert and reaffirm their above responses to the allegations
in paragraphs | through 40 as if fully set forth herein
51
52.
53
54.
55
56.
Admitted. The referenced exhibits speak for themselves.
Fla. Stat. § 196.161 speaks for itself.
The statutory and legal authorities cited therein speak for themselves.
Fla. Stat. § 196.011 speaks for itself.
Without knowledge and thereby denied.
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.Exhibits A and B speak for themselves.
57.
58
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71
72.
73
Denied.
Denied
Denied.
Denied
Fla. Stat. § 196.161 speaks for itself.
Denied. Further, Fla. Stat. § 196.161 speaks for itself.
The legal authority cited therein speaks for itself.
Denied. Further, Fla. Stat. § 196.161 speaks for itself.
Denied.
Fla. Stat. § 196.161 speaks for itself.
Fla. Stat. § 196.161 speaks for itself.
Denied.
Denied
Denied.
Denied
Denied. Further, Fla. Stat. § 196.161 speaks for itself.
Case No. 18-12371 CA 01
County Defendants reassert and reaffirm their above responses to the allegations
in paragraphs | through 40 as if fully set forth herein
74.
7S.
76.
77.
Fla. Stat. § 196.161 speaks for itself.
Fla. Stat. § 193.1554 speaks for itself.
Denied
Denied.78
Case No. 18-12371 CA 01
County Defendants reassert and reaffirm their above responses to the allegations
in paragraphs | through 40 as if fully set forth herein
79:
80.
81
82.
84.
85
86.
Denied
Admitted
Art. VII, § 4(d)(1), Fla. Const., speaks for itself.
Art. VIL, § 4(d)(8), Fla. Const., speaks for itself.
Art. VII, § 4(d)(8)(a)(1), Fla. Const., speaks for itself.
Denied.
Denied
County Defendants reassert and reaffirm their above responses to the allegations
in paragraphs 1 through 40 as if fully set forth herein.
87.
88.
89.
90.
91
92.
94,
95
96.
97.
Fla. Stat. § 196.161 speaks for itself.
Admitted
Denied. The legal authorities cited therein speak for themselves.
The legal authorities cited therein speak for themselves.
Denied
Denied.
Denied
Denied.
Denied. Further, sections 196.161 and 196.011, Florida Statutes, speak for
themselves.
Denied
Any allegation contained within the Complaint not expressly addressed in aCase No. 18-12371 CA 01
numbered paragraph above is hereby denied.
DEFENSES
1, The United States Supreme Court has held on multiple occasions, including in
National Private Truck Council, Inc. v. Oklahoma Tax Commission, 515 U.S. 582, 115 S. Ct.
2351, (1995), that 42 U.S.C. § 1983 does not call for either federal or state courts to award
injunctive and declaratory relief in state tax cases when an adequate legal remedy exists. See id.,
515 U.S. at 589, 115 S. Ct. at 2355. Florida provides an adequate legal remedy in which the
taxpayer may raise all constitutional objections to the tax. See, e.g., Winicki v. Mallard, 783 F.2d
1567, 1570 (11th Cir. 1986). Accordingly, the allegations in Paragraph 95, to the extent they rely
upon 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as authority for suit, fails to state a cause of action
2. 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.”)
3. Plaintiffs are not entitled to a portability credit on the Subject Property under
article 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 aCase No. 18-12371 CA 01
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)
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,
ABIGAIL PRICE-WILLIAMS
Miami-Dade County Attorney
Stephen P. Clark Center
111 N.W. Ist 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
emily@miamidade.govCase No. 18-12371 CA 01Case No. 18-12371 CA 01
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served this 25th
day of February, 2019 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,
AAGI @Gibsontaxlaw.
n, Efile@Gibsontaxla
s/Michael J. Mastrucci
Assistant County Attorney
10
Preview
Filing # 85473381 E-Filed 02/25/2019 06:53:45 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 117 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 Second 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 AppraiserCase No. 18-12371 CA 01 of 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 remaining40. 41. Case No. 18-12371 CA 01 allegations. c. Admitted. Exhibit G speaks for itself. Without knowledge and thereby denied. County Defendants reassert and reaffirm their above responses to the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 40 as if fully set forth herein. 42. 43 44, 45 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. Admitted. The referenced exhibits speak for themselves. Admitted. The referenced exhibits speak for themselves. Admitted Fla. Stat. § 196.161 speaks for itself. The statutory and legal authorities cited therein speak for themselves. Without knowledge and thereby denied. Denied. Denied. County Defendants reassert and reaffirm their above responses to the allegations in paragraphs | through 40 as if fully set forth herein 51 52. 53 54. 55 56. Admitted. The referenced exhibits speak for themselves. Fla. Stat. § 196.161 speaks for itself. The statutory and legal authorities cited therein speak for themselves. Fla. Stat. § 196.011 speaks for itself. Without knowledge and thereby denied. 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.Exhibits A and B speak for themselves. 57. 58 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71 72. 73 Denied. Denied Denied. Denied Fla. Stat. § 196.161 speaks for itself. Denied. Further, Fla. Stat. § 196.161 speaks for itself. The legal authority cited therein speaks for itself. Denied. Further, Fla. Stat. § 196.161 speaks for itself. Denied. Fla. Stat. § 196.161 speaks for itself. Fla. Stat. § 196.161 speaks for itself. Denied. Denied Denied. Denied Denied. Further, Fla. Stat. § 196.161 speaks for itself. Case No. 18-12371 CA 01 County Defendants reassert and reaffirm their above responses to the allegations in paragraphs | through 40 as if fully set forth herein 74. 7S. 76. 77. Fla. Stat. § 196.161 speaks for itself. Fla. Stat. § 193.1554 speaks for itself. Denied Denied.78 Case No. 18-12371 CA 01 County Defendants reassert and reaffirm their above responses to the allegations in paragraphs | through 40 as if fully set forth herein 79: 80. 81 82. 84. 85 86. Denied Admitted Art. VII, § 4(d)(1), Fla. Const., speaks for itself. Art. VIL, § 4(d)(8), Fla. Const., speaks for itself. Art. VII, § 4(d)(8)(a)(1), Fla. Const., speaks for itself. Denied. Denied County Defendants reassert and reaffirm their above responses to the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 40 as if fully set forth herein. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91 92. 94, 95 96. 97. Fla. Stat. § 196.161 speaks for itself. Admitted Denied. The legal authorities cited therein speak for themselves. The legal authorities cited therein speak for themselves. Denied Denied. Denied Denied. Denied. Further, sections 196.161 and 196.011, Florida Statutes, speak for themselves. Denied Any allegation contained within the Complaint not expressly addressed in aCase No. 18-12371 CA 01 numbered paragraph above is hereby denied. DEFENSES 1, The United States Supreme Court has held on multiple occasions, including in National Private Truck Council, Inc. v. Oklahoma Tax Commission, 515 U.S. 582, 115 S. Ct. 2351, (1995), that 42 U.S.C. § 1983 does not call for either federal or state courts to award injunctive and declaratory relief in state tax cases when an adequate legal remedy exists. See id., 515 U.S. at 589, 115 S. Ct. at 2355. Florida provides an adequate legal remedy in which the taxpayer may raise all constitutional objections to the tax. See, e.g., Winicki v. Mallard, 783 F.2d 1567, 1570 (11th Cir. 1986). Accordingly, the allegations in Paragraph 95, to the extent they rely upon 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as authority for suit, fails to state a cause of action 2. 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.”) 3. Plaintiffs are not entitled to a portability credit on the Subject Property under article 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 aCase No. 18-12371 CA 01 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) 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, ABIGAIL PRICE-WILLIAMS Miami-Dade County Attorney Stephen P. Clark Center 111 N.W. Ist 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 emily@miamidade.govCase No. 18-12371 CA 01Case No. 18-12371 CA 01 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served this 25th day of February, 2019 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, AAGI @Gibsontaxlaw. n, Efile@Gibsontaxla s/Michael J. Mastrucci Assistant County Attorney 10