DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

GARY R. NIKOLITS, as Property Appraiser for Palm Beach

County, Florida,

Petitioner,

v.

SARAH B. NEFF, a/k/a SUSAN B. NEFF, a/k/a SALLY B. NEFF,

Respondent.

No. 4D15-2423

[December 9, 2015]

Petition for writ of prohibition to the the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; Catherine M. Brunson, Judge; L.T. Case No. 50-

2013CA016015XXXXMB.

Jeffrey M. Clyman, West Palm Beach, for petitioner.

Jack J. Aiello of Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A., West Palm Beach, 

for respondent.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Carrol Y. Cherry Eaton, 

Assistant Attorney General, Revenue Litigation Bureau, Tallahassee, for 

Amicus Curiae, State of Florida Department of Revenue.

GROSS, J.

Gary R. Nikolits, as Property Appraiser of Palm Beach County, Florida, 

petitions for a writ of prohibition to prevent the trial court from further 

hearing respondent Sarah B. Neff’s declaratory judgment action. We agree 

with the Property Appraiser that the circuit court lacks jurisdiction to 

grant the relief requested because Neff’s action is, at its heart, an untimely 

challenge to the 2012 assessment of her former homestead. Section 

194.171(2), Florida Statutes (2012), is a jurisdictional statute of non-claim 

that precludes any challenge or adjustment to the 2012 assessment at this 

time. Accordingly, we grant the petition and direct that Neff’s action be 

dismissed.1

1The Property Appraiser, and the Department of Revenue – which has filed an 

amicus curiae brief in support of the petition, also argue that Neff lacks standing 
- 2 -

The Save Our Homes (SOH) Amendment and Portability

This case involves the portability of a benefit under the Save Our Homes 

(SOH) Amendment. Passed by the voters in 1992, the SOH Amendment 

caps annual increases in the assessed value of a homestead to three 

percent of the assessment for the prior year or the percent change in the 

Consumer Price Index, whichever is lower. See Art. VII, § 4(d)(1), Fla. 

Const.

In 2008, voters approved a separate constitutional amendment that 

permits a homeowner to transfer the benefit accrued under the SOH 

Amendment to a new homestead established within two years of 

abandonment of the prior homestead. See Art. VII, § 4(d)(8), Fla. Const. 

The 2008 portability amendment allows a homeowner to transfer some or 

all of an SOH benefit to reduce the assessed value of a qualifying new 

homestead. The SOH benefit is the difference between the market value 

(known as just value) and assessed value (as capped by the SOH 

amendment) of the former homestead as of January 1 of the year the 

former homestead is abandoned. § 193.155(8), Fla. Stat. (2012).2 The 

amount of the SOH benefit that can be transferred depends on the value 

of the new homestead, but the benefit is capped at a maximum of 

$500,000. See id. Importantly for this case, if the just value and assessed 

value of the former homestead were the same when it was abandoned, 

there is no SOH benefit that can be transferred.

In sum, the SOH benefit thus depends on the difference between the 

just value and the assessed value in the year that the homeowner 

abandons the former homestead. For calculating the portability benefit, 

to challenge the 2012 assessment. See § 194.181(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2012). Neff is 

seeking to raise the just value on a property she no longer owns. We decline to 

reach this issue as it is not necessary to do so, and lack of standing is not a basis 

for granting a writ of prohibition. Godfrey v. Reliance Wholesale, Inc., 68 So. 3d 

930, 931 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011).

2For example, if the former homestead had a $400,000 just value, but an 

assessed value of only $300,000 due to the SOH cap, then the homeowner could 

transfer the $100,000 SOH benefit to a new homestead established within two 

years. If the new homestead had a $500,000 just value, the assessed value would 

therefore be reduced by $100,000 to $400,000.
- 3 -

the amendment uses the former homestead’s just value as of January 1 of 

the year in which the homestead is abandoned.3

Factual and Procedural Background

Neff owned a home (the “former homestead”) in Lost Tree Village in 

North Palm Beach. On January 24, 2012, she sold her former homestead 

for $5.1 million. For 2012, however, the just value and assessed value of 

the former homestead were the same–$2,325,295. 

In 2013, Neff applied for and obtained a homestead exemption for her 

new home. She then filed a Transfer of Homestead Assessment Difference 

application, seeking to transfer an SOH benefit to the new homestead. The 

Property Appraiser advised Neff by letter that, although the application 

was approved, there was zero portability value because the just value and 

assessed value of the former homestead were the same in 2012.

Upon receiving Notice of Proposed Property Taxes for her new 

homestead for 2013, she filed a declaratory judgment action in circuit 

court, which sought review of the Property Appraiser’s determination that 

she had no SOH benefit to transfer. She explained that she sold her former 

homestead in 2012 for $5.1 million, but for the 2012 tax year, the Property 

Appraiser assessed a just value of only $2,325,295. She claimed that she 

did not receive a tax notice for her former homestead for 2012 and sought 

a declaration that she was entitled to the maximum $500,000 portability 

benefit toward the assessed value of her new homestead. With the benefit 

of hindsight, Neff was taking a unique position for a taxpayer–that her 

2012 just value was too low.

3The amendment provides:

If the just value of the new homestead is greater than or equal to 

the just value of the prior homestead as of January 1 of the year in 

which the prior homestead was abandoned, the assessed value of 

the new homestead shall be the just value of the new homestead 

minus an amount equal to the lesser of $500,000 or the difference 

between the just value and the assessed value of the prior 

homestead as of January 1 of the year in which the prior 

homestead was abandoned. Thereafter, the homestead shall be 

assessed as provided in this subsection.

Art. VII, § 4(d)(8)a.1, Fla. Const. (emphasis supplied); see also § 193.155(8)(a), 

Fla. Stat. (2012).
- 4 -

The Property Appraiser moved to dismiss Neff’s action arguing, in 

relevant part, that any challenge to the 2012 just value assessment of the 

former homestead was time barred by section 194.171(2), Florida Statutes

(2012). The trial court denied the motion. After some discovery, the 

Property Appraiser moved for summary judgment arguing, among other 

things, that Neff’s action was time barred by section 194.171(2), and that 

Neff lacked standing to challenge the 2012 assessment of her former 

property. The trial court denied summary judgment, and this petition 

followed.

Analysis

A writ of prohibition “may issue where a trial court exceeds its 

jurisdiction by failing to dismiss a cause of action contesting a tax 

assessment where the jurisdiction requirements of section 194.171 are not 

met.” Markham v. Moriarty, 575 So. 2d 1307, 1308 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991).

The time for challenging a tax assessment is strictly proscribed by 

statute:

(2) No action shall be brought to contest a tax assessment 

after 60 days from the date the assessment being contested is 

certified for collection under s. 193.122(2), or after 60 days 

from the date a decision is rendered concerning such 

assessment by the value adjustment board if a petition 

contesting the assessment had not received final action by the 

value adjustment board prior to extension of the roll under s. 

197.323.

§ 194.171(2), Fla. Stat. (2012). Neff did not file an administrative challenge 

to the 2012 assessment with the value adjustment board. The 2012 

assessment was certified for collection on October 10, 2012. The 60-day 

time for filing a circuit court action challenging an assessment, therefore, 

expired on or about December 10, 2012. Neff filed her declaratory 

judgment complaint on October 24, 2013. While this action was timelyfiled within 60 days of the 2013 assessment of her new homestead, it was 

filed well outside the time for challenging the 2012 assessment.

Section 194.171(2) is a jurisdictional statute of non-claim. See § 

194.171(6), Fla. Stat. (2012) (“The requirements of subsections (2), (3), and 

(5) are jurisdictional. No court shall have jurisdiction in such cases until 

after the requirements of both subsections (2) and (3) have been met.”).
- 5 -

The Florida Supreme Court has strictly construed this jurisdictional 

statute. See Ward v. Brown, 894 So. 2d 811, 814 (Fla. 2004) (explaining 

that this statute has been strictly construed and “compliance with its 

provisions is mandatory regardless of the nature of the taxpayer’s claim”); 

Markham v. Neptune Hollywood Beach Club, 527 So. 2d 814, 815 (Fla. 

1988) (recognizing that this jurisdictional statute of non-claim bars 

untimely challenges); see also Taylor v. City of Lake Worth, 964 So. 2d 243, 

244 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). 

In addition, the statute providing for the transfer of an SOH benefit 

expressly prohibits any retroactive adjustment of a prior assessment. § 

193.155(8)(i)8., Fla. Stat. (2012) (“This subsection does not authorize the 

consideration or adjustment of the just, assessed, or taxable value of the 

previous homestead property.”). 

Under the circumstances of this case, Neff’s challenge is actually to the 

2012 assessment. The strict jurisdictional time limit of section 194.171(2) 

cannot be circumvented by embedding a challenge to a prior year’s 

assessment in the form of a challenge to the current year’s assessment. 

Neff’s action relies on the $5.1 million actual sale price of the former 

homestead in 2012 to suggest that the $2,325,295 just value assessed in 

2012 was an undervaluation. As noted by the Property Appraiser, Neff 

benefited from the lower valuation, as it resulted in lower taxes during the 

time Neff owned the property.4 Neff’s action seeks to create an SOH benefit

after the fact where none existed at the time the former homestead was 

abandoned. This is contrary to the purpose of the amendment allowing 

portability of an SOH benefit and contrary to the strong public policy 

reflected in section 194.171(2) requiring finality in tax assessments.

Although the circuit court generally has jurisdiction to consider a 

declaratory judgment action under section 86.011, Florida Statutes, the 

action in this case would necessarily involve an untimely and barred 

challenge or adjustment to the 2012 assessment of the former homestead. 

Accordingly, we conclude that the circuit court lacks jurisdiction as a 

matter of law to grant the relief requested in Neff’s action. We grant the 

petition for writ of prohibition and direct that Neff’s action be dismissed 

for lack of jurisdiction.

4According to the Property Appraiser, in 2011, the just and assessed value of the 

former homestead was $2,432,022. The assessed value was reduced further in 

2012 when the just value dropped because the assessed value of a property can 

never exceed the just value. Art. VII, § 4(d)(2), Fla, Const. Thus, there was no 

SOH benefit accrued when the former homestead was sold.
- 6 -

CIKLIN, C.J., and MAY, J., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.