346 So.3d 90
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2022Background
- Appellant (Wayne C. Johansson) challenged 2019 and 2020 property appraisals before the Miami‑Dade Value Adjustment Board (VAB) and alleged the VAB violated his procedural due process rights and administrative rules.
- He amended his complaint to assert statutory and Administrative Code violations, constitutional due process claims, and requests for injunction, mandamus, damages, and fees.
- The VAB moved to dismiss, arguing it is a quasi‑judicial entity immune from suit and that section 194.181 makes the county property appraiser the proper defendant in taxpayer challenges to assessments.
- At a hearing Appellant maintained this was a constitutional due process claim, not a tax suit, and cited alleged misuse of evidence and failures to issue required findings.
- The trial court dismissed the complaint with prejudice, concluding the VAB is immune and not a proper party; the Third District Court of Appeal affirmed de novo, holding the VAB’s actions were quasi‑judicial and the proper defendant for assessment disputes is the property appraiser.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the VAB is the proper party for challenging assessment/procedural violations | Appellant: VAB violated due process and can be sued directly | VAB: §194.181 makes the county property appraiser the proper party to tax suits | Held: VAB is not the proper party; a taxpayer must proceed against the property appraiser |
| Whether the VAB is immune from suit (quasi‑judicial immunity) | Appellant: due process claim survives; VAB can be sued for constitutional violations | VAB: its decisionmaking is quasi‑judicial and entitled to absolute immunity for judicial acts | Held: VAB’s actions were quasi‑judicial and it is immune; dismissal with prejudice was proper |
| Whether Higgs supports allowing a taxpayer to sue a VAB | Appellant: cites Higgs to show VAB can be sued | VAB: Higgs involved the property appraiser suing the VAB, not a taxpayer | Held: Higgs does not support a taxpayer’s suit against the VAB |
| Whether the complaint is a non‑tax constitutional claim rather than an assessment challenge | Appellant: this is a procedural due process/constitutional suit, not a tax suit | VAB: underlying petitions were property appraisal challenges; plaintiff cannot recast them as non‑tax claims | Held: Court rejects recharacterization; record shows assessment challenges, so statutory scheme applies |
Key Cases Cited
- Higgs v. Prop. Appraisal Adjustment Bd. of Monroe Cnty., 411 So. 2d 307 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (involved property appraiser seeking injunctive relief against a VAB; does not authorize taxpayer suits against VAB)
- Rodriguez v. Tax Adjustment Experts of Fla., Inc., 551 So. 2d 537 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (special master and VAB officers are quasi‑judicial and immune from suit)
- Fuller v. Truncale, 50 So. 3d 25 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (two‑prong test for judicial immunity: act must be judicial and issued with jurisdiction)
- Zoba v. City of Coral Springs, 189 So. 3d 888 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (applies functional analysis to determine absolute quasi‑judicial immunity)
- Chakra 5, Inc. v. City of Miami Beach, 254 So. 3d 1056 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (order granting motion to dismiss reviewed de novo)
- Crapo v. Acad. for Five Element Acupuncture, Inc., 278 So. 3d 113 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019) (actions under §194.036 are original actions in circuit court, not appeals)
- Montejo v. Martin Mem'l Med. Ctr., 935 So. 2d 1266 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (illustrative discussion of when quasi‑judicial immunity does and does not apply)