Case Name: Richard DAVIS, Property Appraiser of Bay County, and Larry Fuchs, Executive Director of the Department of Revenue Appellants, v. ST. JOE PAPER COMPANY, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1995-03-23
Citations: 652 So. 2d 907
Docket Number: No. 93-3144
Parties: Richard DAVIS, Property Appraiser of Bay County, and Larry Fuchs, Executive Director of the Department of Revenue Appellants, v. ST. JOE PAPER COMPANY, Appellee.
Judges: JOANOS and MINER, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 652
Pages: 907–911

Head Matter:
Richard DAVIS, Property Appraiser of Bay County, and Larry Fuchs, Executive Director of the Department of Revenue Appellants, v. ST. JOE PAPER COMPANY, Appellee.
No. 93-3144.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
March 23, 1995.
Rehearing Denied May 4, 1995.
Alvin L. Peters of McCauley & Peters, Panama City, for appellant Davis.
Ralph Jaeger, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellant Fuchs.
Fred H. Kent, Jr., of Kent, Hayden, Fac-eiolo & McMorrow, Jacksonville, for appellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
In this appeal, appellants Davis and Fuchs challenge the trial court's judgment reversing Davis's denial of an agricultural use classification for certain property owned by ap-pellee and situated in Bay County. We reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand.
In the proceedings below, appellee St. Joe Paper Company challenged the decision of Richard Davis, the property appraiser, and the Property Appraisal Adjustment Board, to deny St. Joe an agricultural use classification for approximately 230 acres of land fronting on the Gulf of Mexico in Bay County, Florida. One suit was filed for the tax year 1991, and another suit filed for the tax year 1992. The two suits were consolidated for trial. In a pre-trial order, the parties stipulated that if the property was determined not to be used for bona fide agricultural purposes, an assessed value of $4,766,840.00 was a reasonable fair market value.
In reviewing the property appraiser's determination, the applicable standard of review has been stated as follows:
'"[Property] assessors are constitutional officers and as such their actions are clothed with a presumption of correctness. One asserting error on the part of the [property] appraiser must show by 'proof that every reasonable hypothesis has been excluded which would support the property appraiser, (citation omitted)."
Gianolio v. Markham, 564 So.2d 1131, 1133-34 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) (quoting Straughn v. Tuck, 354 So.2d 368, 371 (Fla.1977)); see also Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. v. Markham, 632 So.2d 272 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994).
However, although it is presumed that the determinations of property appraisers are correct, the presumption is rebuttable. If the taxpayer can demonstrate that the property appraiser abused his discretion or failed to follow the required statutory procedures, his determination will not be entitled to the presumption of correctness. 51 Fla.Jur.2d Taxation § 18:86 (1984).
Gianolio v. Markham, 564 So.2d at 1134; see also Blake v. Xerox Corp., 447 So.2d 1348, 1350-51 (Fla.1984) (only issues available on review of determination of property appraiser are whether appraiser considered all factors mandated by law and whether appraiser's methods and conclusion are supported by any reasonable hypothesis of legal assessment).
Section 193.461(3)(b), Florida Statutes, provides that "only lands which are used primarily for bona fide agricultural purposes shall be classified agricultural." " 'Bona fide agricultural purposes' means good faith commercial agricultural use of the land." The statute then sets forth a non-exhaustive list of factors to be considered in the determination of agricultural use, including "whether an indicated effort has been made to care sufficiently and adequately for the land in accordance with accepted commercial agricultural practices, and the "catch-all," "[s]uch other factors as may from time to time become applicable." Zoning regulations must be considered under Sec tion 193.461(4)(a)3., Florida Statutes. It is reasonable to conclude that zoning regulations may also be considered under the "catch-all" provision.
[Physical] use [of the land] is still the guidepost in classifying land, although other specifically enumerated factors relative to use may also be considered. Agricultural use is now and has always been the test.
Gianolio v. Markham, 564 So.2d at 1134, citing Straughn v. Tuck, 354 So.2d at 370.
In the proceedings below, appellee failed to show that the property appraiser did not consider the appropriate statutory factors or that no reasonable hypothesis supported the appraiser's determination that the subject property was not primarily used for bona fide agricultural purposes. Although the highest permissible use for the subject property under the existing zoning classification was for silviculture activities, the property was not actually used for that purpose. Nor is the record susceptible of the interpretation that the property appraiser failed to consider factors which it should have considered, such as zoning regulations.
REVERSED and REMANDED for entry of an order consistent with this opinion.
JOANOS and MINER, JJ., concur.
ERVIN, J., concurs with opinion.
. § 193.461(3)(b)5., Fla.Stat.
. § 193.46 l(3)(b)7., Fla.Stat.
. The highest permissible use of the property pursuant to zoning restrictions may be more crucial in a determination of just valuation under Section 193.011, Florida Statutes. We note that the parties have stipulated to the just value of the property in the event of the ultimate determination that the property was not actually used for agricultural purposes.