Genesis Ministries, Inc. v. Gregory S. Brown, as Property etc. , 186 So. 3d 1074 ( 2016 )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA
GENESIS MINISTRIES, INC., NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
Appellant, DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
v. CASE NO. 1D15-1310
GREGORY S. BROWN, AS
PROPERTY APPRAISER FOR
SANTA ROSA COUNTY,
FLORIDA, STAN COLIE
NICHOLS, AS TAX
COLLECTOR FOR SANTA
ROSA COUNTY, FLORIDA,
AND MARSHALL
STRANBURG, AS EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
_____________________________/
Opinion filed February 16, 2016.
An appeal from the Circuit Court for Santa Rosa County.
John F. Simon, Jr., Judge.
Douglas L. Smith of Burke, Blue, Hutchison, Walters & Smith, P.A., Panama City,
for Appellant.
Thomas M. Findley and Robert J. Telfer III of Messer Caparello, P.A., Tallahassee
for Appellees Gregory S. Brown and Stan Colie Nichols.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Timothy E. Dennis, Chief Assistant
Attorney General, Tallahassee for Appellee Marshall Stranburg.
WETHERELL, J.
Genesis Ministries, Inc. (Genesis) appeals the dismissal of its complaint
challenging the ad valorem taxes imposed on its property for 2005 to 2013. Genesis
argues that the trial court erred in finding that its challenge was barred by section
194.171(2), Florida Statutes. We agree. Accordingly, we reverse the dismissal order
and remand for further proceedings.
I. Factual and Procedural Background
Genesis owned property in Santa Rosa County on which it alleged that it
“continuously operated a Christian school and church . . . since before 2005 through
February of 2013.” The property was granted a “religious exemption”1 from ad
valorem taxes from 2005 to 2012.
On February 26, 2013, the property appraiser for Santa Rosa County recorded
in the county’s public records a Notice of Tax Lien for Ad Valorem Exemption
and/or Limitation Exclusion (Tax Lien) against the property. The Tax Lien – which,
according to the complaint, was recorded “with no warning or due process of any
kind” – claimed that Genesis owed ad valorem taxes for 2005 to 2012, plus penalties
1
See Art. VII, § 3(a), Fla. Const. (“Such portions of property as are used
predominately for . . . religious . . . purposes may be exempted by general law from
taxation.”); § 196.196, Fla. Stat. (establishing the criteria to be used by the property
appraiser in determining whether property is being used predominately for religious
purposes).
2
and interest, amounting to almost $298,000. The Tax Lien asserted that Genesis
“was not legally entitled to receive [the religious exemption] because [it was] Not
Qualified for Ad Valorem Exemption for Reasons Set Forth in the Exemption
Removal Notice” (emphasis added), but the Exemption Removal Notice was not
attached to the Tax Lien nor is it contained in the record on appeal.
Genesis alleged that, in addition to recording the Tax Lien, the property
appraiser also “revoked” its religious exemption for 2013. The complaint does not
allege how or when this occurred, but it is undisputed that when the property
appraiser certified the county’s 2013 tax rolls on October 18, 2013, Genesis’
property was “listed [on the rolls] as fully taxable with none of its previous
exemption.”
At some point (the complaint does not allege when), Genesis asked the
property appraiser for an explanation of his decision to revoke its religious
exemption and “back-assess” its property. In response, the attorney for the property
appraiser sent Genesis a letter dated November 15, 2013, explaining the factual and
legal basis for the property appraiser’s determination that Genesis has not been
entitled to the religious exemption since 2004. The letter concluded by stating that
the property appraiser’s determination “will not be changed.”
In August 2014, after selling the property, Genesis sent the tax collector for
Santa Rosa County a check for approximately $352,000 to pay the 2013 taxes and
3
the amount set forth in the Tax Lien. The letter accompanying the check stated that
the payment was being made “under protest” and that “[a] lawsuit will be
forthcoming seeking a full refund.”
Thereafter, on September 9, 2014, Genesis filed a complaint against the
property appraiser, the tax collector, and the executive director of the Department of
Revenue (DOR) (collectively “Appellees”), seeking a refund of the taxes paid under
protest. The complaint disputed the facts asserted by the property appraiser in the
November 2013 letter, asserted that Genesis’ property was entitled to the religious
exemption from 2005 to 2013, and alleged that the property appraiser violated the
law when he assessed the property without the exemption for 2013 and when he
“back-assessed the Property for 2005 through 2012 by filing the Tax Lien.” The
complaint also alleged that the property appraiser’s actions violated the Equal
Protection, Establishment, and Free Exercise Clauses in the state and federal
constitutions, as well as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act codified in chapter
761, Florida Statutes.
The property appraiser and DOR filed motions to dismiss the complaint.2 The
motions argued that the complaint was barred by section 194.171(2) because, with
respect to the 2005 to 2012 taxes, the complaint was filed more than 60 days after
2
The tax collector subsequently filed a “notice of joinder” in the motion to dismiss
filed by the property appraiser.
4
the Tax Lien was recorded, and with respect to the 2013 taxes, the complaint was
filed more than 60 days after the 2013 tax rolls were certified.
The trial court granted the motions to dismiss, finding that all of Genesis’
claims were barred by section 194.171(2). With respect to the 2005 to 2012 taxes,
the court found that the recording of the Tax Lien triggered the 60-day period in
section 194.171(2) because the lien was equivalent to a denial of the exemption for
those years, and pursuant to Ward v. Brown, 894 So. 2d 811 (Fla. 2004), the denial
of an exemption is subject to the requirements of section 194.171(2). With respect
to the 2013 taxes, the court found that the complaint was barred because it was filed
more than 60 days after the 2013 tax rolls were certified.
This appeal followed.
II. Analysis
We review the dismissal order under the de novo standard of review because
the question of whether a complaint should be dismissed is a question of
law. See City of Gainesville v. Dep’t of Transp., 778 So. 2d 519, 522 (Fla. 1st DCA
2001). And, like the trial court, our review is confined to the well-pled allegations
in the complaint and its attachments. Id.
Section 194.171(2) provides in pertinent part that “[n]o 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) . . . .” This is a “jurisdictional
5
statute of nonclaim” that bars suits filed after the period expires, and it applies
regardless of the ground on which the assessment is being challenged. See Ward,
894 So. 2d at 814; Markham v. Neptune Hollywood Beach Club, 527 So. 2d 814,
816 (Fla. 1988); see also § 194.171(6), Fla. Stat. (“The requirements of subsections
(2), (3),[3] and (5)[4] are jurisdictional. No court shall have jurisdiction in such cases
until after the requirements of both subsections (2) and (3) have been met. A court
shall lose jurisdiction of a case when the taxpayer has failed to comply with the
requirements of subsection (5).”). However, we have previously held that the 60-
day period in section 194.171(2) does not begin to run if the property appraiser fails
to strictly comply with the applicable statutory notice requirements. See Chihocky
v. Crapo, 632 So. 2d 230, 232-33 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994).
Here, although it is undisputed that Genesis’ complaint was filed more than
60 days after the Tax Lien was recorded and more than 60 days after the 2013 tax
rolls were certified, Genesis contends that the trial court erred in dismissing its
complaint pursuant to section 194.171(2) because [A] with respect to the 2005 to
2012 taxes, the 60-day period in that statute is not applicable, and [B] with respect
3
“Before an action to contest a tax assessment may be brought, the taxpayer shall
pay to the collector not less than the amount of the tax which the taxpayer admits in
good faith to be owing.” § 194.171(3), Fla. Stat.
4
“No action to contest a tax assessment may be maintained, and any such action
shall be dismissed, unless all taxes on the property assessed in years after the action
is brought, which the taxpayer in good faith admits to be owing, are paid before they
become delinquent.” § 194.171(5), Fla. Stat.
6
to the 2013 taxes, the property appraiser failed to provide Genesis the statutorily-
required notice that its religious exemption was denied for 2013. We will address
each argument in turn.
A. 2005 to 2012 Taxes
Genesis argues that the Tax Lien that “back-assessed” the 2005 to 2012 taxes
on its property is not subject to the 60-day period in section 194.171(2) because the
statute does not apply to actions challenging tax liens. We agree.
Section 194.171(2), by its clear and unambiguous terms, applies only to
actions contesting “a tax assessment” and it requires such actions to be filed within
60 days after the assessment is “certified for collection under s. 193.122(2).” A tax
lien is not a tax assessment, and it is not certified for collection under section
193.122(2).
Section 193.122 has nothing to do with tax liens. This statute establishes the
procedures pursuant to which the property appraiser certifies (i.e., finalizes) the
annual tax rolls, and in subsection (2), the statute requires the property appraiser to
publish “notice of the date and fact of . . . certification” on the property appraiser’s
website, in his or her office, and in the local newspaper. The certification of the tax
rolls is the culmination of a process that affords property owners considerable due
process before taxes are imposed on their property. See, e.g., § 200.069, Fla. Stat.
(detailing the notice of proposed property taxes that must be provided to property
7
owners each year); §§ 194.011-.037, Fla. Stat. (providing for administrative review
of assessments prior to the certification of the tax rolls).
The Tax Lien recorded against Genesis’ property was not part of the property
appraiser’s certification of the county’s tax rolls for 2013 (or any other year) under
section 193.122. Instead, it was based on the property appraiser’s retrospective
determination under section 196.011(9)(a)5 that Genesis was not entitled to the tax
exemption it received from 2005 to 2012.
Section 194.171 does not refer to section 196.011(9)(a) nor does it mention
tax liens. To interpret section 194.171(2) in the manner urged by Appellees (as the
5
This statute, commonly referred to as the “claw-back statute,” provides in pertinent
part:
The owner of any property granted an exemption who is not required
to file an annual application or statement shall notify the property
appraiser promptly whenever the use of the property or the status or
condition of the owner changes so as to change the exempt status of the
property. If any property owner fails to so notify the property appraiser
and the property appraiser determines that for any year within the prior
10 years the owner was not entitled to receive such exemption, the
owner of the property is subject to the taxes exempted as a result of
such failure plus 15 percent interest per annum and a penalty of 50
percent of the taxes exempted. Except for homestead exemptions
controlled by s. 196.161, the property appraiser making such
determination shall record in the public records of the county a notice
of tax lien against any property owned by that person or entity in the
county, and such property must be identified in the notice of tax lien.
Such property is subject to the payment of all taxes and penalties. Such
lien when filed shall attach to any property, identified in the notice of
tax lien, owned by the person who illegally or improperly received the
exemption.
8
trial court did), we would have to re-write the statute so that it would read: “No
action shall be brought to contest a tax assessment or tax lien after 60 days from the
date the assessment being contested is certified for collection under s. 193.122(2), 60
days after the lien is recorded under s. 196.011(9)(a), or 60 days after the date a
decision is rendered concerning such assessment by the value adjustment board . . .
.” We have no authority to re-write the statute in this (or any other) manner. See Am.
Bankers Life Assurance Co. of Fla. v. Williams, 212 So. 2d 777, 778 (Fla. 1st DCA
1968) (“This court is without power to construe an unambiguous statute in a way
which would extend, modify, or limit its express terms or its reasonable and obvious
implications. To do so would be an abrogation of legislative power.”). Instead, we
must construe the statute as it is written, and as written, the statute simply does not
apply to actions challenging tax liens.
We recognize that, in Ward, the Florida Supreme Court held that the 60-day
period in section 194.171(2) “applies broadly to taxpayers’ actions challenging the
assessment of taxes against their property regardless of the legal basis of the
challenge.” See 894 So. 2d at 812. However, we find no support in Ward for the
proposition that section 194.171(2) should be construed to apply to actions
challenging tax liens.
The taxpayers in Ward argued that section 194.171(2) did not bar their suit
challenging the imposition of taxes on their property because they were challenging
9
the “classification” of the property as taxable rather than the property appraiser’s
valuation of the property. Id. at 813. The Court rejected this “semantic argument”
and held that taxpayers are bound by section 194.171(2) “whether they are claiming
an exemption or claiming that the assessors’ action is illegal, unlawful, or void as an
improper ‘classification’ or for some other reason.” Id. at 816. The Court based its
holding on public policy considerations, explaining that section 194.171(2) is part
of the comprehensive statutory scheme for ad valorem taxation that is “intended to
facilitate tax collecting and to put individual taxation issues on the fast-track to
resolution so that counties may continue to function and count on tax revenues to do
so.” Id. at 815. Accord Chihocky, 632 So. 2d at 232 (explaining that the legislative
intent and public policy underlying section 194.171(2) “is to ensure prompt payment
of taxes due and making available revenues that are not disputed”).
Unlike Ward which arose from a challenge to a current-year tax assessment,
this case involves an effort by the property appraiser to “claw-back” taxes that he
retrospectively determined that Genesis should have paid in prior years. The
county’s budget for those prior years was set taking into account the exemption of
Genesis’ property, and any taxes collected pursuant to the Tax Lien will have no
impact on those prior years’ budgets. Accordingly, the policy concerns
underlying Ward are not present with respect to the Tax Lien’s “back-assessment”
of Genesis’ property for 2005 to 2012.
10
Furthermore, basic notions of due process – i.e., notice and an opportunity to
be heard – weigh against interpreting section 194.171(2) to apply to actions
challenging tax liens. There is no requirement that the property appraiser give the
property owner actual notice of the tax lien, and unlike valuation, classification, and
exemption determinations which can be appealed to the value adjustment board
before the tax rolls are certified and the 60-day period in section 194.171(2) is
triggered, there is no procedure for the property owner to obtain administrative
review of the property appraiser’s determination under section 196.011(9)(a) before
the tax lien is recorded in the public records. Accordingly, if section 194.171(2) was
construed to apply to tax liens, the only opportunity a property owner would have to
challenge the property appraiser’s “back-assessment” of taxes under section
196.011(9)(a) would be by filing suit within 60 days after the tax lien is recorded in
the public records. We find it highly unlikely that the Legislature intended such a
draconian result, which would effectively require property owners to routinely (at
least every 60 days) check the public records to determine whether a tax lien has
been recorded against their property.
11
In sum, because the 60-day period in section 194.171(2) does not apply to
actions challenging a tax lien, the trial court erred in dismissing the Genesis
complaint challenging the 2005 to 2012 taxes.6
B. 2013 Taxes
Genesis contends that the trial court erred in dismissing its challenge to the
2013 taxes under section 194.171(2) because the property appraiser did not provide
the notice required by section 196.193(5)7 before “revoking” its religious exemption
6
In reaching this decision, we did not overlook the property appraiser’s “tipsy
coachman” argument that dismissal of Genesis’ challenge to the 2005 to 2012 taxes
was also mandated by section 194.171(5). That statute divests the trial court of
jurisdiction over an action contesting a tax assessment “unless all taxes on the
property assessed in years after the action is brought . . . are paid before they become
delinquent.” § 194.171(5), Fla. Stat. (emphasis added). However, on its face,
section 194.171(5) has no application here because Genesis’ complaint was filed in
2014 and there were no taxes assessed on the property in the years “after the action
[was] brought” – i.e., after 2014 – that were unpaid or delinquent. The case relied
on by the property appraiser, Washington Square Corp. v. Wright, 687 So. 2d 1374
(Fla. 1st DCA 1997), is not contrary authority; that case involved assessments for
1994 and 1995 that became delinquent after the taxpayer’s suit was filed in 1993.
Accord Bystrom v. Diaz, 514 So. 2d 1072 (Fla. 1987) (approving decision affirming
dismissal of suit challenging 1982 assessment because, while the suit was pending,
the 1984 taxes became delinquent); Higgs v. Armada Key West Ltd. P’ship, 903 So.
2d 303 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (granting petition for writ of prohibition because section
194.171(5) divested the trial court of jurisdiction over suit challenging 2001
assessment when, after the suit was filed, the taxpayer failed to pay or timely
challenge the 2002 assessment).
7
This statute provides:
(5)(a) If the property appraiser determines that any property claimed
as wholly or partially exempt under this section is not entitled to any
exemption or is entitled to an exemption to an extent other than that
requested in the application, he or she shall notify the person or
12
for 2013. Appellees respond that the Tax Lien, coupled with the November 2013
letter, provided Genesis the requisite notice that its religious exemption was denied
for 2013. On the present record, we agree with Genesis.
Contrary to Appellees’ argument, the Tax Lien does not purport to deny
Genesis’ religious exemption for 2013. The Tax Lien, by its terms, only refers to
the 2005 to 2012 tax years and it asserts that Genesis “was not” (past tense) entitled
organization filing the application on such property of that
determination in writing on or before July 1 of the year for which the
application was filed.
(b) The notification must state in clear and unambiguous language the
specific requirements of the state statutes which the property appraiser
relied upon to deny the applicant the exemption with respect to the
subject property. The notification must be drafted in such a way that a
reasonable person can understand specific attributes of the applicant or
the applicant’s use of the subject property which formed the basis for
the denial. The notice must also include the specific facts the property
appraiser used to determine that the applicant failed to meet the
statutory requirements. If a property appraiser fails to provide a notice
that complies with this subsection, any denial of an exemption or an
attempted denial of an exemption is invalid.
(c) All notifications must specify the right to appeal to the value
adjustment board and the procedures to follow in obtaining such an
appeal. Thereafter, the person or organization filing such application,
or a duly designated representative, may appeal that determination by
the property appraiser to the board at the time of its regular hearing. In
the event of an appeal, the property appraiser or the property appraiser’s
representative shall appear at the board hearing and present his or her
findings of fact. If the applicant is not present or represented at the
hearing, the board may make a determination on the basis of
information supplied by the property appraiser or such other
information on file with the board.
13
to the religious use exemption that it received in those years. Additionally, even if
the Tax Lien could somehow be construed to deny Genesis’ religious exemption for
2013, it does not provide any explanation as to why the exemption was denied as
required by section 196.193(5)(b),8 nor does it advise Genesis of its right to appeal
the property appraiser’s determination to the value adjustment board as required by
section 196.193(5)(c). Similarly, although the November 2013 letter does provide
the factual and legal basis for the property appraiser’s determination that Genesis is
not entitled to the religious exemption, it does not advise Genesis of its right to
appeal that determination to the value adjustment board and, moreover, the letter
was issued after the July 1 deadline in section 196.193(5)(a) and after the
certification of the 2013 tax rolls.
At oral argument, the property appraiser argued for the first time that the
notice requirements in section 196.193(5) do not apply in this case because that
statute only applies to the denial of an initial application for an exemption, not the
“revocation” of a previously-granted exemption. We reject this argument because it
does not give effect to the entire statute.
8
We recognize that the Tax Lien states that Genesis was not entitled to the religious
exemption “For Reasons Stated in the Exemption Removal Notice,” but as noted
above, the Exemption Removal Notice was not attached to the Tax Lien nor is it
contained in the record on appeal.
14
Notwithstanding the title of section 196.193 (“Exemption applications; review
by property appraiser.”), the scope of the statute is not limited to initial applications
for an exemption or exemptions that require an annual application. The notice
provisions in section 196.193 broadly apply when “the property appraiser
determines that any property claimed as wholly or partially exempt under this section
is not entitled to any exemption.” § 196.193(5)(a), Fla. Stat.
Moreover, section 196.193(1) specifically addresses property “exempted
from the annual application requirement,” which includes property used for religious
purposes.9 Paragraph (1)(a) provides that such property “shall be returned, but shall
be granted tax exemption by the property appraiser.” Paragraph (1)(b) authorizes
the property appraiser to deny a religious exemption if he or she determines that the
property is being held for speculative purposes or being used for other than religious
purposes, but under paragraph (1)(c), if the exemption is denied, the property owner
may appeal the decision to the value adjustment board “in the manner prescribed for
appealed tax exemptions.”
9
See § 196.011(4), Fla. Stat. (“When any property has been determined to be fully
exempt from taxation because of its exclusive use for religious . . . purposes and the
application for its exemption has met the criteria of s. 196.195, the property appraiser
may accept, in lieu of the annual application for exemption, a statement certified
under oath that there has been no change in the ownership and use of the property.”);
see also § 196.011(9)(a), Fla. Stat. (authorizing the county commission to “waive
the requirement that an annual application or statement be made for exemption of
property within the county after an initial application is made and the exemption
granted”).
15
Section 194.011(3)(d) prescribes the procedure for appealing the denial of a
tax exemption to the value adjustment board and ties the appeal period to the notice
provided by the property appraiser: “With respect to an issue involving the denial
of an exemption, . . . the petition must be filed . . . on or before the 30th day following
the mailing of the notice by the property appraiser under . . . s. 196.193.” The only
notice-mailing requirements in section 196.193 are those contained in subsection
(5). Thus, by virtue of section 196.193(1)(c)’s implicit reference to the value
adjustment board appeal procedures in section 194.011(3)(d), we conclude that
section 196.193(1)(c) necessarily contemplates that the property appraiser is
required to provide notice in accordance with subsection (5) when denying an
existing religious exemption.
The parties have not cited, nor has our research located any cases directly
addressing the consequences of the property appraiser’s failure to provide notice of
the denial of an exemption on the 60-day period in section 194.171(2). However,
we considered a somewhat analogous situation in Chihocky.
In Chihocky, the property owner filed a suit challenging the denial of her
application to classify her property as agricultural. See 632 So. 2d at 231. The suit
was filed more than 60 days after the tax rolls were certified and, pursuant to section
194.171(2), the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the property
appraiser. Id. at 232. We reversed because there were disputed issues of fact as to
16
whether the property appraiser complied with the notice requirements in section
193.122(2) for certification of the tax rolls. Id. 233.
Similar to the argument made by Appellees in this case, the property appraiser
in Chihocky argued that his compliance with the statutory notice requirements was
irrelevant because the property owner’s suit was jurisdictionally barred by section
194.171(2). Id. at 232. We rejected this argument, explaining that it would render
the mandatory notice provisions in the applicable statute meaningless and it was
inconsistent with the legislative intent:
Appellee's interpretation of the jurisdictional time limit would make
gratuitous the notice provision of section 193.122(2) which says that
the property appraiser shall provide notice at the time and in the manner
specified. Despite the mandatory language, the notice requirement
would be meaningless under appellee's interpretation because the only
potential plaintiffs having standing to challenge the defective notice —
those whose assessments were allegedly improper and who did not
bring suit within 60 days — would be barred from the courts. It is
improbable that the Legislature intended that a property appraiser could
certify and extend the tax roll, fail to provide the required notice by
publication and posting, wait 61 days and then be assured that no court
could exercise jurisdiction over a taxpayer's claim of incorrect or
invalid assessment.
In addition, in light of the severe consequences imposed upon the
expiration of 60 days, strict compliance with the statutory notice
requirements would appear to be consistent with the legislative
purpose.
Id. at 233 (emphasis in original).
The same is true here. The Legislature has made clear that the property
appraiser’s failure to comply with the notice requirements in section 196.193(5) has
17
consequences: “If a property appraiser fails to provide a notice that complies with
this subsection, any denial of an exemption or an attempted denial of an exemption
is invalid.” § 196.193(5)(b), Fla. Stat. This statutory provision would be
meaningless if, as Appellees argue, Genesis was barred from challenging the denial
of its exemption for 2013 when it was not provided notice of the denial simply
because its property was listed on the 2013 tax rolls and Genesis did not file suit
within 60 days after the tax rolls were certified.
Accordingly, as the record presently stands, the trial court erred in finding that
Genesis’ challenge to the 2013 taxes was barred by section 194.171(2). That said,
we do not foreclose the possibility that further development of the record may
establish that the property appraiser did indeed provide notice to Genesis before July
1, 2013, explaining why its religious use exemption was denied for 2013 and
advising Genesis of its right to appeal that determination to the value adjustment
board. If so, then, as Genesis conceded at oral argument, section 194.171(2) will bar
Genesis’ challenge to the 2013 taxes because Ward held that the denial of an
exemption is a “tax assessment” for purposes of that statute and it is undisputed that
the Genesis’ complaint was filed more than 60 days after the 2013 tax rolls were
certified.
18
III. Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, the trial court erred in finding that Genesis’ suit
was barred by section 194.171(2). Accordingly, we reverse the dismissal order and
remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
MAKAR and WINOKUR, JJ., CONCUR.
19