246 So. 3d 471
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2018Background
- Taxpayers challenged ad valorem assessments for 2011–2013. Florida law (pre-2016 §194.014) required petitioners to prepay 75% of challenged ad valorem taxes and provided 12% interest on refunds if a “refund is due.”
- Under Tax Collector Casamayor, taxpayers who obtained assessment reductions via either VAB hearings or Petition Withdrawal Agreements received 12% interest on refunds.
- Successor Tax Collector Saiz de la Mora discontinued paying interest when reductions resulted from Petition Withdrawal Agreements (no formal VAB hearing or written VAB decision), and sought to “claw back” interest previously paid, listing amounts on the tax collector website as taxes owed.
- A putative class action was filed by affected taxpayers asserting claims including declaratory judgment, injunction, breach of contract, slander of title, and promissory estoppel; discovery (including pre-certification discovery) was pending.
- The trial court dismissed the Second Amended Complaint with prejudice and stayed pre-certification discovery; the taxpayers appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §194.014(2) entitles taxpayers to interest when refunds arise from Petition Withdrawal Agreements (no formal VAB hearing) | §194.014’s reference to a VAB "determination" includes reductions reflected in the final tax roll and those arising from Petition Withdrawal Agreements; interest is owed regardless of a formal written VAB decision | Saiz contends the statute requires a formal VAB determination (he interprets it as requiring a written VAB decision after a hearing) | Court: Taxpayers’ interpretation is legally sufficient; dismissal on this ground was error and claim reinstated |
| Whether Saiz could claw back interest previously paid under prior tax collector’s practice | Prior payments created a vested right; Saiz lacked statutory authority to claw back interest previously paid | Saiz argues prior payments were ultra vires and collectible back; 2016 amendment supports his view | Court: Whether clawback was authorized depends on statutory interpretation and factual development; premature to resolve on motion to dismiss |
| Sufficiency of pleadings for declaratory judgment, injunction, slander of title, and promissory estoppel | Plaintiffs pleaded facts supporting each element (32 paragraphs for declaratory relief; factual allegations for injunction, slander, and estoppel) | Saiz raised defenses including ultra vires acts (affirmative defense) | Court: Pleadings sufficiently alleged claims; trial court erred in dismissing these counts with prejudice |
| Whether dismissal while pre-certification discovery was pending and before class-certification discovery was allowed was proper | Plaintiffs needed discovery to meet class pleading requirements; pre-certification discovery is permitted | Saiz sought protective order and stay of certain discovery; trial court stayed discovery and dismissed | Court: Trial court erred by staying pre-certification discovery and dismissing complaint with prejudice while discovery pending; discovery necessary to evaluate class allegations |
Key Cases Cited
- Grove Isle Ass’n, Inc. v. Grove Isle Assocs., LLLP, 137 So. 3d 1081 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (standard of review for motion to dismiss)
- The Fla. Bar v. Greene, 926 So. 2d 1195 (Fla. 2006) (motion to dismiss tests legal sufficiency, not facts)
- Minor v. Brunetti, 43 So. 3d 178 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (accept factual allegations as true on motion to dismiss)
- Zingale v. Powell, 885 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 2004) (statutory construction reviewed de novo)
- Escambia Cty v. Bell, 717 So. 2d 85 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (tax collector authority limited to statute or necessary implication)
- Dent v. Belin, 483 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (pleading standard for declaratory relief)
- Haven Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Kirian, 579 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 1991) (affirmative defenses may not be considered on motion to dismiss)
- Lonestar Alt. Sol., Inc. v. Leview-Boymelgreen Soleil Developers, LLC, 10 So. 3d 1169 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (court may not consider affirmative defenses on motion to dismiss)
- Frankel v. City of Miami Beach, 340 So. 2d 463 (Fla. 1976) (pre-certification discovery may be necessary for class claims)
- Harrell v. Hess Oil & Chem. Corp., 287 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 1973) (elements required for class action certification)