Court Opinion

ID: 9909501
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-13 17:02:33.159119+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:37.161480
License: Public Domain

Third District Court of Appeal
                                State of Florida

                       Opinion filed December 13, 2023.
        Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

                             ________________

                              No. 3D23-1165
                         Lower Tribunal No. 23-3 AP
                            ________________

                             Wayne Johansson,
                                Petitioner,

                                      vs.

          Miami-Dade County Value Adjustment Board, et al.,
                           Respondents.

     On Petition for Writ of Certiorari from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade
County, Appellate Division, Daryl E. Trawick, Judge.

     Wayne Johansson, in proper person.

     Millares Law Firm, P.A., and Rafael E. Millares, for respondent Miami-
Dade County Value Adjustment Board; Geraldine Bonzon-Keenan, Miami-
Dade County Attorney, and Ryan Carlin, Assistant County Attorney, for
respondent Pedro J. Garcia, as Miami-Dade County Property Appraiser.

Before FERNANDEZ, SCALES and BOKOR, JJ.

     SCALES, J.
      Petitioner Wayne Johansson, pro se, seeks second-tier certiorari relief

from a May 30, 2023 decision of the Miami-Dade County Circuit Court

appellate division (the “appellate division”) that dismissed, for lack of

jurisdiction, Johansson’s petition for writs of certiorari, mandamus and

prohibition (the “Petition”). Johansson filed the Petition in the appellate

division seeking to quash a recommendation made to the Miami-Dade

County Value Adjustment Board (VAB) by the VAB’s Special Magistrate

regarding the valuation of Johansson’s property. 1 We deny Johansson’s

second-tier certiorari petition because the appellate division properly

dismissed the Petition for lack of jurisdiction.

      I.    Relevant Background

      On January 3, 2023, the VAB Special Magistrate made a

recommendation to the VAB pertaining to the 2022 assessed value of certain

real property Johansson owns in Miami-Dade County. A month later,

Johansson filed his Petition in the appellate division challenging the Special

Magistrate’s recommendation.

1
 Part I of chapter 194 of the Florida Statutes, titled “Administrative Review,”
provides, inter alia, the statutory mechanism for taxpayers to administratively
challenge a property tax assessment. The statutory scheme provides for the
creation of value adjustment boards in each Florida county, authorizes
special magistrates in large counties, and outlines how proceedings before
value adjustment boards and special magistrates are to be conducted.

                                        2
      In dismissing Johansson’s Petition below, the appellate division

concluded, among other things, that it lacked jurisdiction to review the

Special Magistrate’s recommendation because such review of VAB

proceedings was not within section 26.012 of the Florida Statutes’ schedule

of matters over which Florida’s circuit courts have jurisdiction.2

      II.   Analysis3

2
   The appellate division’s decision also noted that, pursuant to section
194.171 of the Florida Statutes, the VAB was not a proper party to a legal
proceeding challenging a tax assessment and, as this Court had held in a
prior opinion, was immune from the claims that had been alleged in that
lawsuit, i.e., a verified complaint filed in circuit court by Johansson related to
the 2019 tax year. See Johansson v. Miami-Dade Cnty. Value Adjustment
Bd., 346 So. 3d 90, 92 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022) (“Johansson-I”). In Johansson-I,
we affirmed the trial court’s dismissal, with prejudice, of Johansson’s twelve-
count, pro se lawsuit against the VAB. Johansson’s lawsuit (seeking
injunctive and mandamus relief, as well as general and punitive damages
against the VAB) claimed, generally, that, by rendering a just valuation that
differed from the valuation Johansson desired, the VAB and its Special
Magistrate had committed various constitutional due process violations. Id.
at 92. We concluded that, because the VAB’s determination of the valuation
of Johansson’s property was a judicial act within the VAB’s jurisdiction, the
VAB and its Special Magistrate enjoyed quasi-judicial immunity for the
valuation determination. Id. at 94. Importantly for the instant case, we also
concluded that, under the relevant statutory scheme, a taxpayer’s exclusive
legal remedy to challenge a property valuation was via an original
proceeding against the property appraiser. Id. at 92 n.2.
3
  An appellate court’s second-tier certiorari review is limited to whether the
circuit court afforded due process and applied the correct law. Fla. Int’l Univ.
v. Ramos, 335 So. 3d 1221, 1224 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021).

                                        3
      In his second-tier certiorari petition, Johansson argues to us that the

appellate division applied the incorrect law when it dismissed his Petition.

Specifically, Johansson asserts that had the appellate division applied

Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.030(c)(2) (governing a circuit court’s

certiorari jurisdiction) and 9.030(c)(3) (governing a circuit court’s prohibition

and mandamus jurisdiction), the appellate division would have concluded

that those rules provide the jurisdictional basis for it to reach the merits of his

Petition. We address, in turn, the infirmities of each of Johansson’s rule-

based jurisdictional arguments.

      1. Rule 9.030(c)(2) – Certiorari Jurisdiction

      Rule 9.030(c)(2) reads, in its entirety, as follows: “Certiorari jurisdiction.

The certiorari jurisdiction of circuit courts may be sought to review nonfinal

orders of lower tribunals other than that prescribed by rule 9.130.” Fla. R.

App. P. 9.030(c)(2) (footnote omitted).

      Rule 9.020(e) reads, in its entirety, as follows: “Lower Tribunal. The

court, agency, officer, board, commission, judge of compensation claims or

body who order is to be reviewed.” Fla. R. App. P. 9.020(e).

      We read the plain language of these procedural rules as authorizing a

circuit court’s exercise of certiorari jurisdiction to review non-final orders of a

tribunal only if the circuit court has reviewing authority over proceedings

                                         4
conducted in that tribunal, i.e., “the lower tribunal.” Our reading of what

constitutes a “lower tribunal” is consistent with Florida case law predicating

a circuit court’s power to issue extraordinary writs upon “appellate review

and supervisory power.” See Fla. Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs v. Escambia Cnty.,

582 So. 2d 1237, 1238 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); see also Dep’t of Health, Bd. of

Dentistry v. Barr, 882 So. 2d. 501, 501 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (“The circuit court

does not have jurisdiction to issue an extraordinary writ if it does not have

direct appellate jurisdiction over the subject matter”).

      The appellate division has no reviewing or supervisory authority over

proceedings conducted at the VAB or by its Special Magistrate. Pursuant to

the relevant provisions of chapter 194, “[a] VAB merely serves to informally

resolve tax disputes or attempts to do so.” Crapo v. Acad. For Five Element

Acupuncture, Inc., 278 So. 3d 113, 121 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019). Indeed, “it is

not necessary for a taxpayer to seek informal resolution with the property

appraiser or the VAB before filing suit in court. Both the property appraiser

and the taxpayer can go straight to circuit court to litigate an assessment . .

. and skip the VAB altogether.” Id. at 121-22 (citation omitted).

      While Florida’s circuit courts have no reviewing or supervisory

authority over VAB proceedings, the circuit courts (as described in part II of

chapter 194, titled “Judicial Review”), do play a critical – in fact, exclusive –

                                       5
role in adjudicating taxpayer disputes. Indeed, the exclusive venue for legal

adjudication of taxpayer challenges to tax assessments is an original, de

novo proceeding in circuit court. § 194.171(1), Fla. Stat. (2023); §

194.036(3), Fla. Stat. (2023). In those original circuit court proceedings,

however, VAB decisions do not serve as precedent and are owed no

deference. Crapo, 278 So. 3d at 122.

      Johansson has cited no authority that Florida’s circuit courts, such as

the appellate division, have authority to review VAB proceedings conducted

under, and decisions rendered pursuant to, part I of chapter 194. 4

      In sum, given Florida’s circuit courts’ role in adjudicating taxpayer

assessment disputes via original proceedings, and without authority to

“review” or “supervise” VAB proceedings, neither the VAB nor its Special

Magistrate constitutes a “lower tribunal” of the appellate division. Thus, rule

9.030(c)(2) does not provide a basis for the appellate division to exercise

4
  We are aware that the heading of section 194.036 (which reads, “Appeals”)
and the section’s prefatory language (“Appeals of the decisions of the board
shall be as follows:”) are misleading in this regard. But section 194.036(3)
plainly states that the circuit court proceeding in which the taxpayer contests
a tax assessment is “de novo.” And, as we noted in Johansson-I, “[a] VAB
decision is not ‘appealable’ in the formal sense of an appeal as a review
proceeding. . . . ‘While this process is referred to as an ‘appeal’ of the board’s
decision, actions brought in the circuit court pursuant to section 194.032,
now section 194.036, are original actions, not appeals.’ Crapo, 278 So. 3d
at 122 (quoting Williams v. Law, 368 So. 2d 1285 (Fla. 1979)).” Johansson-
I, 346 So. 3d at 92 n.2.

                                        6
jurisdiction over that portion of the Petition seeking certiorari relief, and the

appellate division properly dismissed the Petition for lack of jurisdiction.

      2. Rule 9.030(c)(3) – Mandamus and Prohibition Jurisdiction

      Citing rule 9.030(c)(3) as jurisdictional authority, the Petition below

also sought from the appellate division writs of mandamus and prohibition

directed toward the VAB and its Special Magistrate.

      Rule 9.030(c)(3) reads, in its entirety, as follows: “Original Jurisdiction.

Circuit courts may issue writs of mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto,

common law certiorari, and habeas corpus, and all writs necessary to the

complete exercise of the courts’ jurisdiction.” Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(c)(3)

(footnote omitted).

      Johansson’s argument that this rule provides the appellate division

with jurisdiction to issue extraordinary writs to the VAB and its Special

Magistrate is similarly flawed because a circuit court’s power to issue

extraordinary writs exists only where the circuit court has original or appellate

jurisdiction over the parties’ dispute. Wovas v. Tousa Homes, Inc., 940 So.

2d 1166, 1167 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). Put another way, for a circuit court to

issue an extraordinary writ, the issuing court must have appellate review and

supervisory power over the tribunal to whom the extraordinary writ is

directed. Fla. Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs, 582 So. 2d at 1238.

                                        7
      The Petition seeks from the appellate division writs directed to

proceedings conducted by the VAB and its Special Magistrate pursuant to

part I of chapter 194. As discussed above, the appellate division has no

authority to review VAB decisions and has no supervisory power over VAB

proceedings conducted pursuant to part I of chapter 194. Thus, rule

9.030(c)(3) provides no jurisdictional basis for the appellate division to issue

extraordinary writs to the VAB or its Special Magistrate. On this basis, as

well, the appellate division properly dismissed the Petition for lack of

jurisdiction.

      Petition denied.

                                       8