Case Name: BARRETT TOOL RENTAL, INC., Appellant, v. METROPOLITAN MIAMI DADE, etc., Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2001-12-05
Citations: 802 So. 2d 1166
Docket Number: No. 3D00-3642
Parties: BARRETT TOOL RENTAL, INC., Appellant, v. METROPOLITAN MIAMI DADE, etc., Appellee.
Judges: Before JORGENSON, LEVY, and GODERICH, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 802
Pages: 1166–1167

Head Matter:
BARRETT TOOL RENTAL, INC., Appellant, v. METROPOLITAN MIAMI DADE, etc., Appellee.
No. 3D00-3642.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Dec. 5, 2001.
Sutton & Montoto and Osvaldo Diaz, Miami, for appellant.
Zack Kosnitzky and Steven A. Schultz; Robert A. Ginsburg, Miami Dade County Attorney, and Scott Fabricius, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
Before JORGENSON, LEVY, and GODERICH, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Barrett Tool Rental, Inc. (BTR) appeals an order dismissing with prejudice its petition for injunctive relief. We affirm.
BTR sought to prevent the county from levying on its property and contested an ad valorem tax assessment for tax years 1997 and 1998. Because BTR's action comes too late, the trial court correctly ruled that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. See § 194.171(2), Florida Statutes (1999); Markham v. Neptune Hollywood Beach Club, 527 So.2d 814 (Fla.1988) (holding that section 194.171(2) is a jurisdictional statute of nonclaim rather than a statute of limitations); Bystrom v. Diaz, 514 So.2d 1072 (Fla.1987); Pier House Joint Venture v. Higgs, 579 So.2d 392 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991), rev. denied 591 So.2d 183 (Fla.1991); Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Day, 742 So.2d 408 (FlaApp. 5th DCA 1999), rev. denied, 770 So.2d 163 (Fla.2000) (holding that compliance with the 60-day time period to contest a tax assessment after the date a contested assessment is certified for collection is jurisdictional and, if not complied with, deprives the circuit court of jurisdiction). Accordingly, the order is
AFFIRMED.
. As it is clear the court lacked jurisdiction under subsection 194.171(2), we need not address whether the court was correct in ruling thal subsection 194.171(5) also operated to deprive the courL of jurisdiction.