Case ID: so2d_497/html/1306-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM. GLICKSTEIN, Judge,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

OYSTER POINTE RESORT CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., a Florida corporation not for profit; Oyster Pointe Associates, a Florida general partnership; and Donald J. Pinson, Jr., for himself and all members of a class similarly situated, Appellants, v. David C. NOLTE, as Property Appraiser for Indian River County, Florida; Gene E. Morris, Tax Collector for Indian River County, Florida; and Randy Miller, Executive Director of the Department of Revenue of the State of Florida, Appellees. OYSTER BAY II OWNERS’ ASSOCIATION, INC., a Florida corporation not for profit; Sebastian Resort Properties, Inc., a Florida corporation; and Leonard Popow, for himself and all members of a class similarly situated, Appellants, v. David C. NOLTE, as Property Appraiser for Indian River County, Florida; Gene E. Morris, Tax Collector for Indian River County, Florida; and Randy Miller, Executive Director of the Department of Revenue of the State of Florida, Appellees.
    Nos. 85-1290, 85-1291.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    Nov. 19, 1986.
    Michael O’Haire of Smith, O’Haire, Quinn & Garris, Vero Beach, for appellants.
    Robert Jackson of Robert Jackson, P.A., Vero Beach, for appellee-Nolte.
    
      Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and J. Terrell Williams, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee-Miller.
   PER CURIAM.

Affirmed on the authority of Spanish River Resort Corporation v. Walker, 497 So.2d 1299, which is being issued simultaneously. We acknowledge that by our ruling we are expressly approving the constitutional validity of section 192.037(2), Florida Statutes (1985).

DOWNEY and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.

GLICKSTEIN, J., concurs specially with opinion.

GLICKSTEIN, Judge,

concurring specialty-

I am bound to concur because of the decision in Spanish River Resort Corporation v. Walker, 497 So.2d 1299, with which my colleagues on the present panel agree. However, I agree with appellants’ contention that the present assessments are unlawful because the appraiser automatically deducted 15% for sales expenses and 11% for personalty, on the assumption the rule of thumb he generally uses in assessing real property applies to time-share estates, without trying to validate such percentages.

The property appraiser was obligated to give the same full effect to the express language of section 193.011(8) Florida Statutes (1983), as he did to section 192.037(2) Florida Statutes (1983).

I am aware that the supreme court is being asked to review the decision in Hausman v. VTSI, Inc., 482 So.2d 428 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985), with which this concurrence is consistent. No doubt review will also be sought for High Point Condominium Resorts, Ltd. v. Day, 494 So.2d 508 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986), which addresses a major issue common to the time-sharing cases decided today, and comes to a contrary conclusion. At this time I do not know if the supreme court intends to review either of them, or what its decision will ultimately be, should it assume jurisdiction. However, it will now be aware of this court’s views.