Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Appraiser to correct the assessment of their property. We agree with the trial court that the fundamental nature of the appellant’s lawsuit is a challenge of an assessment and, thus, it is governed by the sixty day non-claim statute. See § 194.171(2), Fla. Stat. (1999). As the court explained in Department of Revenue v. Stafford, 646 So.2d 803, 805 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994), regardless of how the complaint is couched, when a taxpayer is challenging the assessment on grounds that it was “unjust, capricious, arbitrary and illegal,” the action is cognizable only under the strictures of section 194.171, which allows a suit to be filed only within 60 days from the date the assessment roll is certified for collection. See also Markham v. Neptune Hollywood Beach Club, 527 So.2d 814 (Fla.1988)(<HOLDING>); State, Dept. of Revenue v. Gerald Sohn, P.A., 
 Holding statements: (A) holding the 60day claim period applicable to a constitutional challenge of an assessment and of the statute authorizing the assessment (B) holding that court can exercise equity jurisdiction over taxpayers challenge that property assessment system is unconstitutional facially or asapplied (C) holding that a notification letter dated 10 days before the expiration of the 60day period was timely  and ignoring the date of receipt (D) holding that trial court may modify sentence on the same day as the assessment of the initial sentence and before the court adjourns for the day (E) holding that the 60day rule under the wisconsin controlled substances act is mandatory and that failure to set the hearing within that period deprived the trial court of jurisdiction
Output (English): holding that a notification letter dated 10 days before the expiration of the 60day period was timely  and ignoring the date of receipt