Case ID: so2d_944/html/1252-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM. WOLF, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

BECKMAN COULTER, INC., Appellant, v. James R. MITCHELL, Trustee of the Cardbeck Miami Trust and Department of Revenue, Appellees.
    No. 1D06-0402.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    Dec. 29, 2006.
    Steven L. Brannock and Maegen P. Luka of Holland & Knight LLP, Tampa, and Jerome W. Hoffman and Mark E. Holcomb of Holland & Knight LLP, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
    Charlie Crist, Attorney General, and J. Clifton Cox, Assistant Attorney General, Revenue Litigation Section, Tallahassee, for Appellees.
   PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. See Dillard & Assocs. Consulting Eng’rs v. Fla. Dep’t of Envtl. Prot., 893 So.2d 702 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005).

HAWKES and THOMAS, JJ., concur; WOLF, J., concurs with opinion.

WOLF, J.,

concurring.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) was mistaken in stating that the challenge to the original tax assessment was not raised by the original petition. This issue, however, is irrelevant as to appellant’s right to intervene in light of this court’s ruling in Dillard & Associates Consulting Engineers v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 893 So.2d 702 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005).

Appellant will have an opportunity to raise the issue of its responsibility for the tax under the indemnity agreement in circuit court. If the Department of Revenue decided to directly assess appellant for the tax pursuant to chapter 212, Florida Statutes, appellant will be a party to that proceeding. Thus, our decision in Dillard is controlling, and we must affirm. If Dillard were ■ not binding precedent, I would reverse the decision of the ALJ and hold that appellant’s substantial interests are affected by this proceeding.