briefs filed by scott morris against cape corl's fire services assessment
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/10/2019 Briefs filed by Scott Morris against Cape Corl's fire services assessment
1/51
Filing 11472066 Electronical ly
Filed
03/1 :4fl 54 145:38:59,
John A. Tomasino,
Clerk,
Supreme
Cour t
IN THE SUPREME
COURT
OF FLORIDA
CASE
NO:
SC14 - 350
Bond
Validation Appea l from a Final Judgment
ofth e Twent ieth Jud ic ia l Circui t ,
Lee County ,
Florida
SCOTT MORRIS ,
JOHN SULL IVAN , LARRY BARTON,
RICHARD
KUDLA
AND
WILLIAM
DEILE,
Appel lants,
V.
CITY OF CAPE CORAL,
Appellee.
APPELLANTS INITIAL
BRIEF
MORRIS LAW
FIRM,
P.A.
Scot t
Morr is ,
Esquire
Florida Bar
Number :
0083755
Post Office Box
152908
Cape
Coral,
FL 33915 -2908
239
772-1635
TELEPHONE
( 239 ) 772 -1524
F S I M I L E
Scot t@Morr isLawFi rm.ora
Counse l
for
Appe l lan ts
-
8/10/2019 Briefs filed by Scott Morris against Cape Corl's fire services assessment
2/51
T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S
T a b l e
o f C o n t e n t s i
T a b l e
o f Authorit ies i i i
I n t r o d u c t i o n
S ta te m e n t of
J u r i s d i c t i o n 2
S t a t e m e n t
of th e s e
a n d th e F a c t s 3
S u m m a r y of th e A r g u m e n t 6
A r g u m e n t
I
TH E
T R I A L C O U R T C O M M I T T E D R E V E R S I B L E
ERROR
B Y
I N C L U D I N G F I N D I N G S OF F A C T IN
TH E F I N A L
J U D G M E N T
W H I C H
A R E
N O T S U P P O R T E D B Y S U B S T A N T I A L C O M P E T E N T
E V I D E N C E 9
II TH E TRIA L C O U R T S F IN DIN G T H AT C IT Y
C O UN C I L C O M P L I E D
W I T H
P R O C E D U R A L
D U E
PROCESS IS N O T
SUPPORTED
B Y
S U B S T A N T I A L C O M P E T E N T E V I D E N C E A N D IS
R E V E R S I B L E
E R R O R
7
III
TH E
TRIA L C O U R T
C O M M I T T E D REVERSIBLE
ERROR
B Y IT S
D E N I A L
OF TH E
PROPERTY OWNERS OR E TENUS M O T I O N
F O R C O N T I N U A N C E 2 4
IV T H E R E
IS N O S U B S TA N TI AL C O M P E T E N T E V I D E N C E TO
S U P P O R T
TH E
F I N D I N G B Y
C IT Y
C O U N C I L A N D
TH E T R I A L
C O U R T
T H A T TIER
OF
TH E F IR E A S SE S SM E N T C O M P L I E S
W I T H
TH E
R E Q U I R E M E N T S
OF
F L O R I D A
S T A T U T E
1 7 0 2 0 1 2 9
-
8/10/2019 Briefs filed by Scott Morris against Cape Corl's fire services assessment
3/51
V. THERE
IS
NO
SUBSTANT IAL COMPETENT EV IDENCE TO
SUPPORT
TH E F IND ING BYCITY COUNC IL
AN D
TH E TRIAL
COURT
THAT
T IER 2 OF T HE FIR E A SS E S S ME NT C OM P LIE S
WITH
THE
REQUIREMENTS OF FLORIDA
STATUTE
170.201.........35
C o n c l u s i o n 4 2
C e r t i f i c a t e o f
S e r v i c e 4 4
C e r t i f i c a t e o f
C o m p l ia n c e 4 5
-
8/10/2019 Briefs filed by Scott Morris against Cape Corl's fire services assessment
4/51
TABLE
OF
AUTHORITIES
Decisional uthority
City
of
Boca Raton,
Florida
v. State of
Florida,
5 9 5
S o .
2 d
2 5
F l a .
1 9 9 2 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 0
Collier County,
Florida v.
State
ofFlorida,
7 3 3
S o . 2 d 1 0 1 2 F l a . 1 9 9 9 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 0 , 4 1
De Groot v. Sheffield,
9 5 S o . 2 d
9 1 2
F la . 1 9 5 7 ) . . . . .. . . . . .. . . : . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . 1 6
Fisher v. Board ofCounty
Commissioners
ofDade County,
8 4
S o .
2 d 5 7 2 F l a . 1956 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2 , 3 4 , 4 0
Fleming v. Fleming,
7 1 0 S o . 2 d 6 F l a . 4 * D C A 19 9 8 ) . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . 2 7 ,
2 8
Florida
Department
of
Revenue
v. New
Sea
Escape
Cruises
LTD,
8 9 4 S o . 2 d 9 5 4
F la . 2 0 0 5 ) . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . 2 0 ,
2 1
Holland v. Gross,
8 9 S o . 2 d 2 5 5 F l a .
1 9 5 6 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 , 1 5 , 1 7 , 2 9 , 3 5
In
the Interest of
D.S., B.R.,
R.R.
and C.R.
Children, M.R., m other v . Department
of
Children and
Fam ily Services,
8 4 9
S o . 2 d 4 1 1 F l a . 2 d D C A 2003 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 8
Keys Cit izens for Responsible Government,
Inc ., v .
Florida
Keys Aqueduct
Authority,
7 9 5 S o . 2 d
9 4 0
F l a .
2 001 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 7 ,
1 8
Lake County ,
Florida
v . Wa ter
Oak Managem ent
Corporation,
6 9 5
S o . 2 d 6 6 7 F la .
1 9 9 7 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2
S e e
Dissent
11 1
-
8/10/2019 Briefs filed by Scott Morris against Cape Corl's fire services assessment
5/51
Massey
v . Cha rlo tte County , Florida,
8 4 2 S o . 2 d 1 4 2 F l a . 2 d DCA
2 0 0 3 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 7
Panama
City Beach
Commun i t y Redevelopment Agency v. State Florida,
8 3 1
S o .
2 d 6 6 2
F l a .
2 0 0 2 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1
Sanford
v. Rubin,
2 3 7
S o .
2 d 1 3 4
F l a . 1 9 7 0 ) . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . .. . 2 3
Savage
v.
State
Florida
1 2 0 S o .
3 d 6 1 9
F l a .
2 d D C A 2 0 1 3 ) . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . .. . . . 1 5 , 1 6 3 4
Sarasota
County v. Sarasota Church
Christ,
Inc.,
6 6 7
S o . 2 d 1 8
F l a . 1 9 9 5 ) . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . 4 1
S t . Lucie County - Fort Pierce Fire
Prevention
and
Control
Distr ict
v.
Higgs,
1 4 1 S o
2 d 7 4 4
F l a .
1962 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 9
Strand
v.
Escambia
County, Florida,
9 9 2
S o .
2 d
1 5 0
F l a .
2 0 0 8 ) . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. 9 ,
1 7
2 4 , 2 9 , 3 5
Universal Insurance Company North Amer ica v. Warfe l
8 2 S o 3 d
4 7 F l a . 2012 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Statutory
Authori ty:
F l o r i d a S t a t u t e s S e c t i o n
1 7 0 . 2 0 1 . . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . 2 9 ,
3 5 , 3 9 ,
4 2 ,
4 3
F l o r i d a S t a t u t e s S e c t i o n 75 . 01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
F l o r i d a S t a t u t e s S e c t i o n 75 . 08 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Other Author i ty :
Florida
Rule of
Appellate
P r o c e d u r e 9 .030 (a) (1 )(B) (i).............................................2
Florida Constitution
Article V ,
S e c t i o n
3 b ) 2 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
-
8/10/2019 Briefs filed by Scott Morris against Cape Corl's fire services assessment
6/51
B l a c k s L a w
D i c t i o n a r y Fifth
E d i t i o n 1 9 7 9 . . . .. . . . .. . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . .. . . . .. . . .. . . . .. . . .. . . 1 5 , 3 2 , 3 6
P a m e l a
M . D u b o v C i r c u m v e n t i n g th e
F l o r i d a C o n s t i t u t i o n :
P r o p e r t y T a x e s
a n d
S p e c ia l A s s e s s m e n ts T o d a y s
I l l u s o r y
D i s t i n c t i o n
3 0
S t e t s o n L . R e v .
1 4 6 9
2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
-
8/10/2019 Briefs filed by Scott Morris against Cape Corl's fire services assessment
7/51
I NTRODUCT ION
This
is
an
appea l
f rom
a f i n a l
judgment
in
a
bond
val idat ion
proceed ing
entered by th e Circui t
Cour t of
th e Twe nt ie th Judic ia l Circuit, in and
fo r Lee
County, Florida on
December
11, 2013 , and th e subsequent den ia l
of
th e
Appe l l an ts Mo t i o n fo r Rehea rin g o n January 10, 2014 .
Rather than util ize th e full par ty names, Defendants be l ow and Appe l l an t s
here a r e referred
to a s
the
Prop er ty Owners.
Rather than utilize the full
party
name,
the
Pla in t i f f
be low
and
Appel lee
here will
be
re fer red to
a s
C i ty
Counci l .
The .Append ix will
be
referred to
by
the
symbo l
A PP
fo l lowed b y
th e
page
number
of
the
appended document, e g (APP
0001. )
-
8/10/2019 Briefs filed by Scott Morris against Cape Corl's fire services assessment
8/51
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
Under
Florida
Statutes
sec tion 75 .01 ,
a Circui t
Court
has
jur isdic t ion
to
determine th e validity ofbonds, and all mat te rs connected therewi th . Pursuan t
to
Florida
Rule
ofAppellate Procedure 9.030(a)(1)(B)(i) ,
th is
Cour t has jur isdic t ion
over
f inal
orders
entered in
proceedings
fo r
th e
validation ofbonds where provided
by general law . Th is Cou rt h a s mandatory jur isdict ion to
hear
appeals from final
j udgments entered
in a proceeding fo r th e
validation
of
bonds.
Th e
Florida
Constitution
at
Article V,
section
3(b)(2)
and
Florida
Statutes
sec tion 75 .08 provides tha t either party
m ay
appeal th e tr ial court s decision on th e
complaint fo r validation.
2
-
8/10/2019 Briefs filed by Scott Morris against Cape Corl's fire services assessment
9/51
STATEMENT
OF
THE
CASE
AND
THE
FACTS
This appea l a r ises
from
a
f ina l judgment
granting City Council s
p r a ye r to
val idate
its Fire Protection
Assessment
Revenue
Note, Series
2013 , in
a
pr inc ipa l amount not to exceed 1 ,500,000.
(APP
0878-0900. )
The
notes
are
to
fund in pa r t th e acquisit ion
of
cer ta in
capita l
equipment
fo r
th e
fire department.
The appea l a lso involves
th e
denia l
of th e
motion fo r
rehear ing.
The Proper ty
Owners
file this appea l requesting remand and/or reve rsa l of th e f inal
judgment.
City
Council
f irst
cons ide red the idea
of
a
fire
assessment
in
2009
a s
pa r t
of
a
report prepared by Bu rton
Associates,
a t
which
t ime
it was
decided
by
City
Counc il not to
proceed.
On pril
3,
2013 ,
City Counci l approved
Administ rat ive
Resolut ion 2013-13 to engage
the
services ofBurton
Associates
to update the
report from
2009. (APP 0789-0790.)
City
Counc il h e ld
a workshop on
J une 3 ,
2013 ,
where in th e
init ial results
of
the updated Burton Associates r epo r t dated Ma y 2 4, 2 01 3, we r e received. Af te r
the
workshop
the
City
Manage r rece ived the
f inal
study
dated
June 6 2013 . The
f inal study was
approved
by City Counci l on
June
1 2013 .
In addit ion
to
approva l
of
the f ina l study, City Counci l directed the City
Manager
to
bring
forth
1 A f inal r ev ised s tudy was issued by Bu r ton Associa tes on August 22,
2013 ,
th e re is
no subs tan tia l compe ten t evidence
in
th e r e co rd to suppor t th e
findings wh ich
City Counci l
made
concerning
th e
f inal r ev ised s tudy a t
th e
August
26 , 2013,
meeting.
(APP 1056-1204.)
3
-
8/10/2019 Briefs filed by Scott Morris against Cape Corl's fire services assessment
10/51
an enab lin g o rd in a n ce fo r th e fire assessment a nd
a n
i n i t i a l assessmen t resolut ion.
(APP
0789-0790. )
City Counc i l
passed
Ord in a n ce 41 -13 , the Fire Protec t ion Asses smen t
Ord inance
on July 15 , 2013.
Ord in a n ce 41 -13
descr ibed
in deta i l th e
procedura l
due
process r ights a s created by C ity Counc i l fo r th e Prope r ty Owne rs c on c ern in g
th e
imp lemen ta t i on of
th e Fire
Protec t ion
Assessmen t .
(APP 0791- 0814.)
City
Counc i l passed Resolut ion 30-13 the Fire Protec tion
Assessmen t In i t ia l
A s s e s s m e n t
Resolution
o n
July
2 9
2013.
(APP
0815-0836.)
City
Counc i l
p a s s e d
Resolut ion
32-13
th e Fire Protec tion
Fina l Assessmen t
Resolut ion on
Augus t
26 , 2013. (APP 0837-0863.)
City
Council
p a s s e d
Note
Ordinance
47-13
on August 2 6 2013. (APP 0864-
0877.)
City
Counci l 's
Comp la i n t
fo r
Val idat ion
was
f i led in
th e
Circui t
Cour t
of
th e
Twent ieth Judic ia l Circuit ,
in
and fo r
Lee
County,
Florida
on
Augus t 28, 2 013 .
(APP
0878-0900, wi thout attachments. )
The Circui t Court
i ssued
a n Order
to
Show
Cause
on September
1 1 2013 ,
fo r a
one hou r
hear ing
on
October
7,
2013.
( APP 0901- 09 04.)
The one-hour
show cause
hear ing commenced
on October 7, 2013,
and
e n d e d
on October 9 2013. (
APP
0001-0489.) (APP 0901-0904.)
-
8/10/2019 Briefs filed by Scott Morris against Cape Corl's fire services assessment
11/51
Based o n T a la n Corpora t ion s fi l ings after th e conclus ion
of
th e show cause
hear ing,
th e t r ia l court a l l owed an add i t i ona l hea ring on November 27 , 2013,
wh ich
was described a s both ev iden t ia ry and
non-evident iary
(APP 0490-0707. )
f ina l
judgment
was
entered by
th e
t r ia l court
on
December
11,
2013.
(APP 0708-0745 .)
Mot ion
fo r
Rehear ing was time ly filed on Decembe r 23,
2013.
The
Motion directed the tr ial
cou rt s attention
to the f inal
judgmen t s reliance on
facts
that were
not
in
evidence.
(APP
0746-0786.)
The.Mot ion fo r Rehear ing was
denied
wi thou t
hear ing
on
January
1 2014.
This
t imely a p p e a l
fo l lowed. (APP 0787.)
The
t r ia l court issued its ow n
order
styled
O rde r Sett ing Evident iary
Hear ing describing th e November 27, 2013,
hear ing
rega rd ing Ta lan s
fi l ings
fo r
th e
stated purpose to al low l imited evidence
and
arguments to T a la n s
apport ionment methodology
objection .
(APP 1018-1019.) Ye t a t
th e
hear ing, th e
t r ia l court
indicated it was
no t
rece iv ing add i tiona l evidence, and act ively
precluded
parties from
in troducing new evidence. (APP 0499 ,0500 ,0526 . ) In
th e
f ina l
judgment th e t r ia l court re l ied
on matters
beyond
th e
scope ofTalan
Corpora t ion s
partic ipation in
th e act ion which
were argued, but n o t in t roduced
into evidence, on November
27,
2013. (APP
0708-0745.)
-
8/10/2019 Briefs filed by Scott Morris against Cape Corl's fire services assessment
12/51
S U M M A R Y O F T HE A RG U M EN T
Property O w n e r s
c o nte n d t he
trial c o u rt c o m m it te d
reversible
error
in m o r e
than on e area, an y ofw h i c h d e m a n d either remand o r reversal of th e trial cou r t s
final ju d g me n t .
Th e
trial co u r t
c o mmi t t e d
reversible e r r o r b y setting forth f md i n g s
in
th e
final j u d g m e n t w h i c h a r e n o t supported b y
substantial
competent evidence.
t is
abundantly clear that th e trial
cou r t considered
Resolution 5 6 - 1 3 , in
crafting
th e
final
j u d gm en t . Resolution
5 6-1 3 w as
passed
b y
City
C ounc i l
o n N o v e m b e r
2 5 ,
2 0 1 3 ,
o n ly tw o
days before th e N o v e m b e r 2 7 ,
2 0 1 3 ,
h e arin g o n T ala n s m o t io n .
Resolution 5 6 - 1 3 w as n o t in t ro d u c e d
a s evidence
at
th e
N o v e m b e r 2 7 ,
2 0 1 3 ,
hearing.3
City C ou n ci l s
attorney
tried
to
discuss
Resolution 5 6 - 1 3 at
th e
N ovemb er 2 7, 2 0 1 3 ,
hearing.
Since Resolution 5 6 - 1 3
w as n ot
plead in
th e
original
complaint ,
there
w as
a
concern
that
th e
matter
w o u l d
be
tried
b y
im pl ied
c o n s e n t
n o t objected
to .
Scott M orri s objected to n e w matters b e i n g b ro u gh t to th e trial cou r t s
attention w h i c h
h ad
n o t been f ramed b y
t h e p le ad in g s
in th e c a s e
since
there
h ad
A l th o u g h n o t i n t r o d u ce d a s evidence
in
th e c a s e Resolution 5 6 - 1 3 is part of
th e record
b y v ir tu e of
a
Notice
ofFil ing
b y
City
C ou nc il s
attorney o n N o v e m b e r
2 6 ,
2 0 1 3 . AP P 1 0 2 0 - 1 0 2 8 . ) t is included a s part of th e ap pe nd ix to p ro ve to th is
C o u r t
th e trial c o u r t relied o n it
in
crafting th e f m a l j u d g m e n t thus c o m m i t t i n g
reversible
error.
6
-
8/10/2019 Briefs filed by Scott Morris against Cape Corl's fire services assessment
13/51
been no
r eques t
to
amend
th e or ig ina l co m pla in t. H e wa s gra n te d a con t i nu ing
ob je c tio n to
any d is c uss ion concern ing
Resolu t ion 56-13 Var ious por t ions of th e
t ranscr ipt
estab l ish
th e t r ia l cou r t
uni la tera l ly
created
u t te r con fus ion a s
to
th e
scope and na tu re of th e Novembe r 27 , 2013, hea r ing .
W as
it
ev iden t ia ry
o r not?
(APP 0001-0489 .) (APP 0490 -0707 .)
The t r ia l cour t fa ile d t o
recognize
the
Proper t y O wn ers w e re
den ied
impor tan t procedu ra l r ights of due p ro ce s s
a s
guaran teed b y the Uni t ed Sta tes
Const i tu t ion,
th e
Florida
Const i tu t ion
and
th e
Fire
Protec t ion
Assessmen t
Ord inance
41-13 in
several a r e a s
The f i rs t due
process issue is th e fa i lure of
the t r ia l
cou r t
to
recognize
t ha t
th e
Proper ty Owne rs d id n ot rece ive proper
not ice
b y
ma i l o r
b y publ icat ion
of
the i r rights of
procedura l
due process a s s e t fo r th
in
Ordinance
41-13.
The second
due
process issue
is
th e fa i lure of
th e
Ci ty
M a n age r to a pp oin t
an
Assessmen t Coo rd ina t o r r equ ir ed
b y
Ordinance
41 -13 ,
pr ior to any cour t
act ion
be ing f i led. The Assessmen t Coord ina to r is an impor tan t and necessa ry posi t ion
in
o r de r
fo r
th e
Prope r t y
Owne r s
to be ab le to
exerc ise t he i r
p rocedu r a l
r ights
of due
p r o c e s s
a s
established
b y
City
Counci l ,
in Ord inance 41 -13 . (APP
0791-0814. )
The th i rd due
process
issue arises as.a resu l t
of
th e t r ia l
cou r t s
den ia l of th e
o re te n us mo t i o n fo r con t i nuance mad e
b y
th e
P rope r t y Owne r s
o n O cto b er
8,
7
-
8/10/2019 Briefs filed by Scott Morris against Cape Corl's fire services assessment
14/51
2013 .
A review
ofth e transcript
of
the proceedings
shows
that th e
tr ial court
was
apparently confused f rom th e
inception
about the proceed ings and the exact na tu re
ofwhat should take
place
procedurally dur ing th e
hearing.
(APP
0001-0489 . )
Addit ionally, Property Owners
contend the
fire a s s e s s m e n t methodology,
developed
b y Burton
Associates and
adopted
by
City
Counc i l is arbitrary in
construct
a n d . application, is
no t
supported by substant ia l competent evidence,
but
instead is b a s e d on
bald
conclusions devoid of
any record proo f
which will
satisfy
th e
tw o
prong
test
fo r
a
special
assessment.
(APP 0905-0951) .
The Property Owners contend
that
th e
two
t ier f ire
assessment
methodology
is no t fairly
apportioned
between the various parcels.
The
methodology
adopted
by City Council
is in
fact
arbitrary
in i ts applicat ion.
Finally,
Property Owners contend that Tier 2
of
th e fire assessment
methodology
adopted
by
City
Counci l
is
actually
a
property
tax
in
disguise
a s it
re lies on ad
valorem
valuation4 without an substant ia l
competent
evidence that the
special benefit
enhances
th e
value of th e structure in a
logical rela t ionsh ip to
th e
assessment
o r th at
the numbers relied upon are accurate.
4Structure
value
is defined in Resolution 32-13 a s
.
th e sum ofth e
building cost value and th e bui lding extra feature value associated
with
each Tax
Parcel
in th e City
a s determined b y
th e
City through reference to th e real property
database maintained
by th e Property Appraiser.
(Emphasis added.) (APP
0842.)
8
-
8/10/2019 Briefs filed by Scott Morris against Cape Corl's fire services assessment
15/51
A R G U M E N T I S S U E
I.
TH E TRIAL C O U R T C O M M I T T E D
REVERSIBLE
ERROR B Y
I N C L U D I N G
FINDINGS
O F F A C T IN
TH E F I N A L JUDGMENT
W H I C H AR E NO T
SUPPORTED
B Y
SU BSTA N TI A L
C OM P ETENT
EVIDENCE.
STANDARD O F
R E V I E W ISSUE
N o l e s s t h a n five p a r a g r a p h s
in
th e f in a l j u d g m e n t contain f i n d i n gs
of fact
w h i c h
a r e n ot supported
b y
s u b s ta n tia l c om p e t e n t e v id e n ce . Th is C o urt
r e vie ws
th e
t r ia l court s
f i n d i n g
of fact fo r
s u b s ta n tia l c om p e t e n t e v id e n c e a n d its
conclusions
of
l a w, d e novo. St r a n d
v Escambia
County,
Flo ri da ,
9 9 2
S o
2 d 1 5 0
Fla . 2 0 0 8). Th e
findings will be erroneous
n ot
b a s e d
on substantial
evidence
H o l l a n d v
G r o s s
8 9
S o
2 d
2 5 5
Fla.
1 9 5 6 ) .
This
issue
concerns th e h e a r i n g w h i c h w a s h e l d on N o v e m b e r 2 7 ,
2 0 1 3 ,
involving Talan Corp orat ion s Motion to I n t e r v e n e a n d o t h e r p r o ce d u r a l motions.
A l t h o u g h n o t in t ro du c e d
a s
evidence,
Resolution
5 6 - 1 3
is
p a r t of
th e
r e c o r d in this
c a s e
AP P
1 0 2 0 - 1 0 2 8 . )
t th e c om m e n ce m e n t of th e h e a rin g on N o v e m b e r 2 7, 2 0 1 3 , th e t r ia l court
instructed a ll p a r t i e s of th e
sco pe
a n d p u r p o s e of th e h e arin g. Th e t r ia l court
stated
th e
f o l l o w i n g :
A g a i n
m y
i n t e n t fo r
p u r p o s e s
of today, h a v i n g
p r e v i o u s l y
c l o s e d
out
th e e vid e n ce , w a s
to h e a r
a n y
addit ional a r g u m e n t
b a s e d
u p o n th e e vid e nc e of r e c o r d a n d n ot to r e o p e n
9
-
8/10/2019 Briefs filed by Scott Morris against Cape Corl's fire services assessment
16/51
every th ing a nd d ra g
this t h ing
on fo r ano the r mon t h , tw o
mo n th s , th re e mo n th s, e t ce te ra .
W e have
to
have
some
f inal i ty
to it based
upon
th e
s ta tu tory
scheme t ha t says
we
need to proceed
fo r thwi th . So
t ha t s m y
in tent ion
here
today. In regards to T a la n s r eques t a s i n t e r veno r
to
a t least
presen t
some
a rgumen t ,
wha t s
y o u r
r eques t
in tha t r ega r d, s ir ? (Emphas is added . ) ( APP 0496 . )
This
in ter jec ted con fus ion
f rom th e
ve r y beg inn ing
A t
th e s ta rt
of
the
hear ing,
Ci ty Co un c il s counsel ,
Ms. Chu ru t i
a t tempted
to
in t e r je c t n ew evidence
in to
th e hea r i ng based on th e fo l lowing:
And ,
You r
Hono r ,
in
th e in terest
of
j ud ic ia l
economy ,
w e d like to update you
on
fu r ther legislat ive act iv i ty
tha t
h a s
occurred wi th regard to
this
c a s e
( APP 0497.)
P ro pe rty Owne r Scot t Morr i s , ob jec ted a s fo l lows:
You r
Hono r , I need
to
pose an objec t ion
to th at
issue
part icular ly because t hey re
going
to ge t into
someth ing
that
is
n o t f r amed in
the or ig inal
pleadings.
The y re
going to ge t
into
a new resolu t io n ; and
j us t
fo r th e
record ,
I
need to
t ime ly make
an ob ject ion
accord ing
to c a s e la w t ha t I w o n t have imp l ied a consen t
to
tha t
issue be t r ied.
The re
is.no
ame n dme n t be fore
you at this
poin t ,
b u t th e issue t hey re
ra is ing
h a s
n o t been
raised in th e
or ig inal
comp la in t . (APP 0497.)
The t r ia l cou r t
agreed
and
sus ta ined
th e
ob ject ion
to
n ew ev idence
b y th e f o l l ow ing
s ta temen t :
W e re
n o t op e n in g th e ma t t e r fo r purposes of accep t ing
add i t i ona l ev idence . Tha t s
a l r eady come
a nd go ne .
(Emphas is added ) (APP
0499-0500. )
10
-
8/10/2019 Briefs filed by Scott Morris against Cape Corl's fire services assessment
17/51
Counsel fo r Talan
Corporation stated,
I
though t t h is
was an
evidentiary
hear ing. To wh i ch th e trial cour t responded, Well,
and
it was not iced in
th e
event that
yo u
needed
to
present evidence with respect to present ing some
argument, 5 Th e tr ial
cour t
created u t ter
confus ion
in t he proceed ings .
How
can
you
present
evidence
to
support argument?
City Coun ci l s counsel,
Ms .
Churu t i again
tried t o in te rjec t new
evidence into th e
proceedings
with
th e
fol lowing
statement:
Your
Honor,
in
th e
interest
of
judic ial
economy, I
th ink we can
cu t
offa lo t of these
arguments
because
there has
been
fu r ther leg is la t ion that s
occurred by
th e
legislative body. The ci ty commiss ion, th e counci l , and
th e City of
Cape
Coral would .like
to
advise you of
that. (APP 0505-0506 .)
Property Owner, Scott Morris immediately responded
Again
each
t ime that
comes
up
I
mus t
voice an
object ion.
(APP
0506. )
In
response th e Court
s t a t e d I will
give
you
a standing objection to that
Mr. Morris.
(APP
0506.)
Talan s attorney then began to use
some
demonstrative aids
which
referred
to
th e
new reso lu t ion recen tly passed. In order
to make
sure th e objection
had
been
made c lear Scot t Morris stated
th e fol lowing:
So
I
don t
have
to
keep
popping
up eve ry s ing le
t ime,
Scott
Morris,
fo r th e
record.
Just s o maybe
yo u
can
allow me to have
a
standing objection. I believe
some
This
exchange is found
at. (APP
0500. )
1 1
-
8/10/2019 Briefs filed by Scott Morris against Cape Corl's fire services assessment
18/51
of
h is
demonst ra t ive
aids i nc lude ta lk
abou t
Reso lu t ion
56 .13 ,
which
w as
just passed
las t
M o n d a y . I can
have
a s tand ing ob jec t i on
to
t ha t
( APP 0508 . )
The Cour t
responded
I ve
a lr eady ind ica ted
you have a standing
object ion.
Thank you sir. (APP 0508.)
A
little l a te r in th e h e a rin g o n No v e m b e r 27 , 2 0 13 , th e tr l
cou r t
again
s t a t e d
At th e p re s en t
t ime , I'm
n o t
reopen ing
the
ev idence. Tha t includes
an y
revis ions
to a t t emp t to
cu re de fec ts o r de f ic ien c ies .
(Emphas is
added ) ( APP
0526 . )
These s ta temen t s
b y
the
t r ia l
cou r t
l im i ted
the
scope
of
th e h e a rin g
on Novembe r 27, 2013 , to argumen t on ly and n o t fo r t he pu rpose
of
accep ting any
addi t iona l
evidence which
was
re in forced
b y grant ing Scot t
Mor r i s object ion.
A close examinat ion of
th e
paragraphs in the
f ina l
j u dgmen t t ha t a r e
labe led
th i r ty- f i rs t ,
th i r ty -second , th i r ty - th i rd and
t h i r t y -seventh
prove th e t r ia l cou r t re l ied
on matters which
were
improper ly
in ter jected
into th e
Novembe r
2 7, 2 01 3, hear ing
and
n o t
ra is ed o n Oc tobe r
7,
8
o r 9,
2013 . .Compare f i na l j u dgmen t , ( APP
0737 -
0741 .) to t ranscr ipt f rom Oc tobe r 2013 , ( APP 0001 -0489 .) and t ranscript f rom
Novembe r 27, 2 013.
(APP 0490 -0707 .)
The
th i r ty - f i rs t paragraph of th e f i na l j u d gme n t states in pa r t t ha t du r i ng th e
proceed ings th e
Ci ty
iden t i f ied
an
issue
r ega rd i ng
th e
va lua t ion da ta
se t fo r th in the
spreadshee t
ob ta ined
f rom th e
prope r t y
app ra i se r
in July 2013 , fo r purposes
of
12
-
8/10/2019 Briefs filed by Scott Morris against Cape Corl's fire services assessment
19/51
preparing
the
assessment rol l . ( A PP 0 7 3 7-0 7 3 8.)
There is no subs tan tia l
com petent evidence in this c a s e to p rove this f inding. The only discussion this
valuation
data
occurred
during the
hearing
held
on
November 27,
2 0 1 3 , which
was
not ev identiary in nature, ( APP
0490 - 0707 . ) compared
to th e
transcript
October
2013 .
(APP
0 0 0 1 - 0489 . ) '
The thir ty-second paragraph
the f inal
judgment
s t a t e s
in part
that
S poradicerrors
in
data do not s ingular ly
constitute
a
basis
upon
which
th is Court
can
invalidate
the
Note or
a s s e s s m e n t
process...
( APP
07 38.) The sporadic
errors
were
not
a d d r e s s e d until
November
2 7, 2 0 1 3,
during
a
hearing
that was not
evidentiary in nature, (APP
0490-0707. )
compared to the
transcript
October
2013 . ( APP 0 0 0 1 -0 489 .)
The
thirty-third
paragraph
the f inal j udgment states in part tha t
the City
has
obtained
corrected data
from
the
Property App ra ise r
and
ha s
undertaken
corrective
measures. The
tr ial
court made
a
specific
f inding
a s
fo l lows:
. Such tes tim onyfur ther demonstrated that
th e
variance in
valuation data between the
corrected July
2 0 1 3 data
file
and a
similar file obtained
in
November 201 3 represented approximately
0 . 2 1
a ll Structure Value
in th e
City and
was, therefore,
a d e min imus
variation that
was
not attr ibutable to
errors in
6Resolution
56 -13 , Sec tion 3 , subparagraphs
(D )
and
(E )
appear
to conta in
a lmos t the exact language
used
by
th e
tr ial court in th e
thirty-f irst
paragraph. This
resolution
was
passed on
November 2 5,
2 0 1 3 , a s a
direct
result
Talan 's record
f i l ings pointing out
th e
many
mistakes
in
th e
data. ( APP 1020 - 1028 . )
1 3
-
8/10/2019 Briefs filed by Scott Morris against Cape Corl's fire services assessment
20/51
preparation of
th e Assessment
Rol l
o r th e data files
obtained
by
th e
City f rom th e Property
Appraiser.
(APP
0738. )
The th ir ty- th ird paragraph
clearly
considers
errors
and th e correct ion of
errors
which
was
set
forth in
test imony
by
Mr.
Michael
Burton
on
November
27,
2013 ,
and which
was
contained
in th e
language
of
Resolut ion 56-13 .
( APP
0738-
0739.)
(APP 0607-0663 .)
The thirty-seventh paragraph
of
th e f inal judgment s t a t e s in part that th e
methodology makes u s e ofperpetual ranges
of
5,000.00 increments and
rounding
c onventio ns. T he
tr ial
court states fur ther that th e uncontroverted test imony
offered during this
proceeding demonstrated
that th e
use ofsuch ranges is a
well
established and common prac tice in assessment appor tionment methodo logy . (APP
0740-0741.)
This tes timony concern ing th e round ing methodology was elicited on
November 2 7 2013.
(APP
0636-0663.)
Property
Owners
surmise the tr ial court fo r th e most part adopted
verbatim
th e proposed f inal judgment submitted by City
Council 's
attorney.
Without th e
benefit
of
th e transcript of
th e ent ire proceeding
before it , th e court
had no way to
really ascertain th e
test imony came
during th e October evidentiary hearing
o r
th e
non-evidentiary hearing
on
November
27, 2013 .
As
a
result,
it
is
somewhat
understandable why such substantial errors were made.
However,
the errors
are
no t harmless in nature and justify reversal. Particularly since th e
confusion
in th e
14
-
8/10/2019 Briefs filed by Scott Morris against Cape Corl's fire services assessment
21/51
p ro ceed ings was
caused
b y th e
t r ia l
cou r t and n o t
an y of t he pa rt ie s .
Blacks La w Dic t iona ry ,
Fif th
Ed i t ion , 1979,
def ines f in d ing
of fac t in par t
a s fo l lows:
A conc lus ion b y
w a y of
reasonable i n fe rence
f rom
th e
ev idence.
The Florida
Supreme Cou r t
was con ce rn e d
wi th f indings of fact b y
th e
t r ia l
cour t
and
whe the r
o r n ot there
was
substant ia l compe ten t evidence to suppor t a
f inding,
in
th e c a s e ofHo l l and v G ross, 89 S o
2d
255
(Fla.
1956).
The
appropr iate
s tandard
of
r ev iew was
expla ined b y
th e Cou r t a t p age
258
a s
fo l lows:
A
f ind ing
of
fact b y th e
t r ia l cou r t
in a non - j u r y c a s e
will n o t be
s e t
aside
on rev iew unless there is no substa n tia l
evidence
to
sustain
it , unless it is clear ly agains t the weigh t
of
th e
evidence, o r
unless
it
was
i nduced b y an er roneous
view of
th e
law.
A
fin d i ng wh i ch rests
on
conclusions
d rawn f rom
undisputed
evidence,
r a the r than
on confl icts
in
th e t e s t imony , does
n o t
car ry wi th it th e same
conclusiveness a s a f ind ing rest ing on probat ive disputed
facts,
b u t
is
ra ther
in th e n a tu re
of
a
lega l conc lus ion .
W he n
t he appe lla t e cou r t
is con vin c e d th a t
an e xp re s s
o r i n fe ren t ia l f i nd ing of
the
t r ia l cou r t is w i t h o u t suppo r t
of
a n y s u b sta n tiv e e vid e n ce , is clear ly against
th e
we igh t
of th e evid ence
o r
t ha t th e t r ia l cou r t has misappl ied th e
la w to the es tab lished fac ts , the decis ion is c lea r ly er roneous
and
t he appe lla t e
will
reverse
because
th e
t r ia l
cou r t
has
fa i le d to give l ega l ef fec t to th e ev i dence in it s ent i re ty .
The Second
Dist r ic t Cou r t of
Appea l
in th e c a s e
ofSavage v Sta te
of
15
-
8/10/2019 Briefs filed by Scott Morris against Cape Corl's fire services assessment
22/51
Florida,
1 2 0
S o .
3d
619
(Fla. 2 d
DCA 2013 ) , s e t
forth
an
excellent
description of
the
competent
and substantial
evidence
standard which can be applied to the c a s e at
bar. The
court at
page
621
stated
the following: 7
The term com petent substantial evidence
does
not relate
to the quality, character, convincing power, probative
value
or weight of the
evidence
bu t
refers to
th e
existence
of some evidence
(quantity)
a s to each essential element and
a s
to
the
legality and
adm issibility of
that
evidence.
Competency
of
evidence refers to its adm issib ility under legal
rules of evidence. Substantial requires that there
be some
(more
than a
mere
iota, or scintil la), real, m aterial,
pertinent,
and
relevant
evidence
(as
distinguished
from
ethereal,
metaphysical,
speculative or m erely
theoretical
evidence or
hypothetical
possibilities)
having
definitive
probative value
(that is, tending to
prove )
a s to each essential element of
the offense charged.
The
trial
court
in
the
c a s e
at bar
has
committed reversible
error
by making
findings in
the final judgment
that
were
not based
on any
evidence, let alone
b a s e d on substantial competent evidence. The final
judgment should be
reversed
and remanded
for
further
evidentiary
proceedings.
Actually
relying upon the Florida Supreme Cou rt s definit ion in the
c a s e
of
De Groot v .
Sheffield, 9 5 S o .
2d
9 1 2 (Fla. 1 9 5 7 ) .
1 6
-
8/10/2019 Briefs filed by Scott Morris against Cape Corl's fire services assessment
23/51
ARGUMENT ISSUE
II
II. THE TRIAL COURT S FINDING THAT CITY COUNCIL
COMPLIED
WITH PROCEDURAL
DUE
PROCESS
IS
NOT
SUPPORTED
BY
SUBSTANTIAL COMPETENT EVIDENCE
AND
IS
REVERSIBLE
ERROR.
STANDARD
OF REVIEW ISSUE II
This issue concerns City Council s failure to
follow
its own procedure for
im plem entation of
the
Fire Protection Assessment. This
Court
reviews
the
trial
court s
finding of fact
for
substantial competent evidence and its conclusions of
law, d e
novo.
Strand v . Escambia C o u n t y , Florida, 9 9 2 S o . 2d 1 5 0 (Fla. 2 0 0 8 ) .
The
findings
will be erroneous not based on substantial evidence Holland v .
G r o s s , 89
S o . 2 d 25 5
(Fla. 1956 ) .
The Court in Massey
v .
Charlotte
C o u n t y , Florida, 8 4 2
S o . 2d 1 4 2 ,
1 4 6
(Fla.
2 d
DCA
2003 ) , described procedural due process in part a s follows:
Procedural due process imposes constraints
on
governmental
decisions
that
deprive individuals of liberty or
property
interests...
Procedural due
process requires both fair notice
and
a real opportunity to be heard at a m eaningful t im e and
in
a
meaningful m anner . . .
The
specific
parameters
of the notice
and opportunity to be heard required by procedural
due process
are no t evaluated b y fix ed
rules of law,
bu t
rather
b y
th e
requirem ents of
the
particular proceeding.
. .
property rights are
particularly
sensitive
where residential property
is at
stake.
.
(Emphasis added.)
Keys Citizens ForResponsible Government , Inc., v . Florida Keys Aqueduct
1 7
-
8/10/2019 Briefs filed by Scott Morris against Cape Corl's fire services assessment
24/51
Author i ty . 795 So.
2d
9 40 , 9 48
(Fla. 2001) ,
stated th e
fo l l ow ing
conce rn i ng due
process:
The ba sic due p rocess gua ran tee of th e Flor ida Const i tu t ion
p rovides tha t
[n ]o
pe rs o n s h a ll
be
depr ived
of
li fe , l ibe r ty
o r
proper ty without d u e
process
of l aw. Ar t . I, 9
Fla.
Const.
The
Fifth
Ame n dm e n t t o
th e Uni ted S t a t e s
Const i tut ion
guarantees th e same.
[p] rocedura l due process
serves a s
a veh ic le t o
ensure
fa i r t rea tmen t th rough
th e
p rope r
admin i s t ra t i on
of
just ice
where subs tan t ia l
r ights
a re
a t
i ssue.
Procedural
due process
requires
both fair not ice
and a rea l
oppor tun i ty
to
b e
heard.
th e
no tic e mus t be reasona b ly
calculated,
under
a ll the c ir cums tances , to appr i se
interested
par t ies
of
th e pe n den c y
of
th e
act ion
and
afford
them
a n
opp o r tun i ty t o present
thei r object ions.
The
n o tic e m u s t
be
of
such
nature
a s
reasonab ly
to convey
th e
required
i n fo rmat ion, and
it mus t afford
a
reasonable t ime fo r those interested
to
ma k e
thei r
appearance. Further,
th e oppor tun i ty
to be
heard
mus t be
a t a
mean ing fu l
t ime and
in a
mean ing fu l
m anne r .
The in i t ia l
fire
protect ion assessment ord inance was enacted
by City Counc i l
on July
1 5
2013. Ord in a n ce 41 -13 set forth th e la w a s it re la te d to th e fire
protect ion a s s e s s m e n t and
its im p lemen ta tio n . (APP 0791 -0814 .)
Several por t ions
of
th e
o rd in a n c e m us t be examined fo r
Prope r ty Owne rs to i l lus trate
t ha t
th e
den ia l
ofdue
process has occurred.
8-35 Def in i t ions , states
t ha t a n
As s e s smen t Coord ina to r (Emphas i s
added.) means th e
person
o r
ent i ty
des ignated
by
th e
City
Man a g e r t o
be
responsib le
fo r coord ina t i ng th e Fire
Protect ion
Assessments .
(APP
00794. )
One wou l d an t i c i pa te
th a t th is
c ruc ia l
pos i t i on
wou l d
h a ve b ee n filled
a t
th e
18
-
8/10/2019 Briefs filed by Scott Morris against Cape Corl's fire services assessment
25/51
t ime
th e ordinance was
passed or
immediately
thereafter,
part icular ly s ince the
administration had known
fo r months that
it was pursuing
a f ire protect ion
assessment.
The Assessment
Coordinator
is th e po in t person
fo r proper
administrat ion of
the entire
fire
assessment
program
f rom the notices,
to hand ling
objections, to
preparation of
th e
roll, to billing
and
col lection, to appeals of
improper
s s e s s m e n t s
The
posit ion is
crucia l to handle due process i s s u e s
8-40 ofthe ord inance at subsection 6 ) s t t e s the Assessment
Coordinator
will
a)
prepare
the
init ial
Assessment
Roll,
s
required
by
8-41
hereof, b )
publish the notice required
by 8-42
hereof, and c )
mail
the notice required by
8-43 hereof using information
then
available
from
the
Tax Roll . APP
0799 . )
8-42
A ) of the ordinance requ ires the
Assessment
Coordinator to publ ish
or
direct the publication of
not ice regarding th e
fire
protection s s e s s m e n t
8-42
B )
s t t e s
that
the
publ ished notice
shall
conform
to
th e
requirements
of
the
Uniform Assessment Collection A c t and shall include 4 ) the procedure
fo r
objecting provided in 8-44 hereof . APP 0800 . )
8-43 A ) ofthe ordinance requires the Assessment Coordinator to
mail
or
d irect to be mailed
notice to p roper ty
owners of
the p roposed
fire
protection
assessment.
8 -43
B )
states
th e
notice shal l contain
B)
7 ) a
statement
that a ll
affec ted Ow ners have
r ight
to appear
at
th e
hearing
and
to file wri t ten objections
19
-
8/10/2019 Briefs filed by Scott Morris against Cape Corl's fire services assessment
26/51
wi th
th e
City Counc i l wi th in 20 days of the no t ice .
(Emphas i s added.)
(APP
0800-0801.)
The ord inance a t 8-44 (C) states in pa r t th e fo l l ow ing :
All wri t ten object ions to th e F ina l Assessmen t Resolu t ion sha l l
be f i led
with th e A s se ssm e n t
Coord i na to r a t o r before th e
t ime
o r ad jou rned t ime of such hear ing .
(Emphas i s
added.)
(APP
0801.)
It is a fundamen ta l concept
in Florida
L a w that , where a statute is
clear
and
unamb iguous a nd
conveys a
clear a nd
defin i te
m ean in g , th e
statute mus t
be
given
it s
p la in and obvious
mean i ng .
Flor ida
Depa r tmen t
of
Revenue v .
N ew Sea
E s c a p e
C r u i s e s L T D . 8 9 4 S o .
2d 9 5 4
(Fla.
2005) .
The f irst den ia l ofth e Property
Owner s '
r ights of
due
process occurred
concern ing
th e
not ice of
pub l ica t ion at tached
to th e fire
pro tec t ion
i n i t i a l
a s s e s s m e n t resolut ion.
(APP
0833-0834.) The
pub lished no t ice
s t a t e s
in
paragraph
two , t ha t Allaffected
proper ty owners
have a r ight
to a p p ea r a t
th e
hear ing an d
to
il
wr i t ten
object ions
with the Ci ty w i t h in . twe n t y days of this not ice . (Empha s i s
added.) The
pub lished no t ice , in t roduced a s evidence, does
n o t
c omp l y with th e
manda t e
of 8-42
ofth e
ord inance wh ich required
wri t ten object ions
to be filed in
accordance
wi th
8-44
of
the o rd in a n ce ,
wh i ch
references
th e
Asses smen t
Coord ina tor , a s required
by
8-44
(C).
(APP 0800-0 8 01.)
Aga i n ,
a f u ndamen t a l
concep t
in
Flor ida
L a w th a t whe re a
s ta tu te is
clear
a nd unamb iguous a nd conveys
20
-
8/10/2019 Briefs filed by Scott Morris against Cape Corl's fire services assessment
27/51
a clear
and
def in i te
mean ing, th e
statute
mu s t be
given
it s plain and obv ious
mean ing. T h e fa ilu r e t o fo l low th e publ ished
no tic e re qu ireme n t
is a fai lure to
follow th e plain mean i n g of th e
o rd inance .
Florida Depa r tme n t o fRevenue v New
S e a Escape
Cruises, L
TD.,
894
S o
2d
954
( Fla . 2005) .
The second den ia l
of
th e
Prope r t y
Owners r igh t s of due p ro ce s s
concerns
th e not ice
b y
mai l , attached to
th e
fire protec t ion in i t ial
assessment reso lu t ion .
( APP 08 35 -08 36 .) T he n otice ,
does
n o t
con ta in
th e la nguage manda t e d b y 8-43
of
th e
ord inance,
which
requ i red
object ions
to
be
f i led
wi th
Cape
Coral ,
n o t
th e
City.
( APP
0 80 0-0 80 1.) T h e n o tic e, con ta in s the s a m e
language
tha t
was in
th e
not ice
of
publ ica t ion,
and
ne i t he r compl ies wi th th e requ i rements
8-42,
8-43,
o r
8-44
of
th e
ord inance. (APP
0799-0802. )
T he fai lure to fo l low th e mai led
not ice
requ i remen ts is a
fai lure to fo l low
th e plain
mean i ng of
the o rd in ance .
Flo r i da
Depa r tmen t
of
Revenue
v New Sea
Escape
Cruises,
LTD. , 894
S o 2d 954
(Fla.
2005).
The th i rd den ia l of th e P rope r ty Ow ne r s r igh ts of due p ro ce s s conce rn s th e
fai lure
to a pp oin t
th e A s se s smen t Coord ina to r
pr io r to the
Show
Cause
hear ing in
Oc tobe r
2013 .
The f o l l ow ing
exchange
p ro ve s th e
poin t :
M r. Dei le : Okay , in th e d o cumen ts
tha t
establ ish this
a s s e s s m e n t it talks
abou t
a posi t ion cal led
th e
assessmen t c oo rd in a to r. Is
this
a
ful l -
t im e o r
a pa r t
t ime
j o b ; do
yo u k now?
21
-
8/10/2019 Briefs filed by Scott Morris against Cape Corl's fire services assessment
28/51
M r.
S z e r l a g : F r an k l y ,
I m
n o t a w a r e
of
a posit ion
c a l l e d
a s s e s s m e n t c o o r d i n a t o r in th e City of
Cape
Coral. I t h i n k t h a t w o u l d r e f e r to
s o m e o n e
t h a t s
current ly
in
w i t h i n
th e
f i n an ce
d e p a r t m e n t
t h a t w o u l d b e
th e p o i n t p e r s o n
fo r
c o l l e c t i o n
of
this
as s es s m ent.
M r. D e i l e : In
th e
resolution, it says t h a t
th e
as s es s ment
c o o rd in a t o r, u sin g h is
g o o d j u d g m e n t , h a s
a u t h o rit y t o a d d p e op le
to
th e e x e m p t l ist,
a re
y o u
a w a r e of that?
M r.
S z e r l a g :
Y e s .
M r.
D e ile : W h a t
gu i d el i n es
h a v e
yo u
b e e n ,
will
b e
g i v e n
to this assessment coordinator?
M r. S z e r l a g : I
w o u l d
d e f e r t h a t question to o ur b o n d
counsel a s t h e y drafted th e resolut ion.
A P P 0 3 9 8 . )
Th i s e v i d e n c e
w a s n e v e r c o n tro v e rt e d
b y City
C o u n ci l a t th e
h ear i n g,
ye t
th e
t r ia l
co u r t
i g n o r e d
th e e v id e n ce w h e n it m a d e a
f i n d i n g ,
in th e f m a l j u d g m e n t ,
in
p a r a g r a p h s
n u m b e r e d t h i r t y- n i n t h
a nd
f o rt y -f o u rt h , w i th o u t s u b s t a n t i a l
c o m p e t e n t
evidence to s up po rt th e
f indings.
T hu s,
th e
question arises a s to w h e th e r
th e
a d m i n is t ra t i o n , i n t e n t i on a l l y,
m a d e this proces s m i s l e a d i n g b y fai lure to followCity C o u n c i l s d i r e c t i v e s o r
w h e t h e r
it
w a s ,
s i m p l y ,
n e g l i g e n t
in
p e r f o r m a n c e
of
its m a n d a to ry
duties.
T h e r e is
n o s ub s ta n tia l c om p e te n t e v id e n ce
to support
th e
f i n d i n g s of
th e
t r ia l court
h o l d i n g
t h a t th e P r o p er ty O w n e r s re c e iv e d p ro pe r n otic e w h e n in f a c t
t h e y
r e c e i v e d
2 2
-
8/10/2019 Briefs filed by Scott Morris against Cape Corl's fire services assessment
29/51
conflicting notices.
The.denial
of
th e Property Owners r ights ofdue process
was
before th e tr ial
court
at
two d iffe r ent
t imes. First,
th e
court stated
it
wou ld consider a ll
arguments
raised
in
legal
memorandums
s o
long
a s
they were d irected
to th e
evidence in
the
c a s e 8 Property
Owner
Scott Morr is s memorandum
in
opposit ion
to
th e
complaint
fo r validation
raised
th e m at ter before
th e
trial cou rt. (APP 0952 -1017 .)
The
matter was also raised in the Appel lants
Motion fo r Rehearing.
(APP 0746-0786.)
Property Owners
contend
that
even
this
Cour t
wou ld
decide
that
the
matter
was not properly raised in th e
trial
court,
that
th e
matter
is one of
fundamental error
and can be add re ssed
by th is Cou rt fo r th e f irst
t ime,
on
appeal because
it goes to
the very foundation ofthe City Council s c a u s e
ofaction.
In order fo r the bond
validation process to be a success, City Counci l mus t prove
it
complied with
a ll
th e
constitutional
requirements
ofdue process. Proper adherence
to
due process
requirements is
a fundamental
requirement
fo r the City
Cou ncil s to be
successful
in the cau se o
action. Universa l Insurance
Company
of
North Amer ica
v
Warfel ,
8 2 S o
3d
47
(Fla.
2012);
Sanford
v
Rubin,
237 S o 2d 1 3 4
(Fla.
1970).
8 T h e trial cour t ind icated it wou ld consider a ll arguments based on ev idence
in the record. (APP 0484-0485.)
23
-
8/10/2019 Briefs filed by Scott Morris against Cape Corl's fire services assessment
30/51
A R G U M E N T
I S S U E
III. T H E T R I A L C O U R T
C O M M I T T E D REV ERSI B LE
ER R O R
BY
IT S D E N I A L
O F T H E P R O P E R T Y
O W N E R S
O RE TENUS
M O T I O N F O R C ON TIN U A N C E.
S T A N D A R D O F R E V I E W I S S U E III
T h e
g ra n tin g o r
d e n i a l
of
a
m o t i o n fo r continuance is c l e a r l y
a m a tte r th a t is
w i t h i n
th e
discretion
of
th e t r ia l
j u d g e a nd
should
n o t
b e overturned
unless
a n
a b u s e
of
discretion ca n b e establ ished b y tlie c o m p la i nin g p a rty .
S t r a n d
v
Es cam b i a
County, F l o r i d a , 9 9 2
S o 2 d
1 5 0
F l a.
2 0 0 8 ) .
O n
th e
m o r n i n g
ofO c t o b e r 8 2 0 1 3 , P ro p e rty O w n e r S c o t t M o rris
m a d e
a n
ore
tenus m o t i o n
fo r
continuance
w h i c h
w a s
j o i n e d in b y th e ot h e r P r o p er t y
O w n e r s . T h e purpose
of
th e m o t i o n w a s to obt a i n
a
continuance s o t h a t d i s c ov e ry
could
b e
o b t a i n e d , w h i c h h a d n o t occurred
becau se
of th e v e r y short tim e p e rio d
be t w e e n
t h e
O rd er to S h ow
C a u s e
a n d
th e a c tua l h e a rin g .
A P P .
0 0 9 2 -0 10 6 . )
A s
e v i d e n c e d b y
th e O r d e r
to
S h o w
Cause, th e h e a r i n g h a d o n l y
b e e n
scheduled fo r
period
of
o n e hour.
A P P
0 9 0 1 -0 9 0 4 .) F urth e rm o re ,
there i s no
representat ion in a n y of th e p a p e r w o r k file d in th e r e c o r d , t h a t
th e
date a nd
t i m e
of
th e
h e a r i n g w a s c o o r d i n a t e d
with
a n y
of
th e P r o p e r t y O w n e r s
w h o
h a d
e n t e r e d a n
appearance in th e c a s e
At th e c o m m e n c e m e n t of
th e
h e a r i n g
th e
t r i a l co u r t
stated
G i v e n
th e
n u m b e r of d e f e n d a n t s ,
there
will
b e
a th r ee- m i n u te t im e
l im i ta t io n .
Pleas e
d o
n o t
2 4
-
8/10/2019 Briefs filed by Scott Morris against Cape Corl's fire services assessment
31/51
simply repeat wha t others have al ready said
y ou w is h
to speak. Absolu te ly no
direction was given by
th e
t r ia l court a s to whe th e r o r no t
evidence wou ld
be
admit ted, witnesses could be presented oi. cross examinat ion wou ld be
a l lowed.
The
only parameters
th e
t r ia l court establ ished e a rly o n was that th e
Property Owners could
only
speak fo r
three
minutes each. (APP 0006.)
The bond val idat ion hear ing was a f irst fo r
th e
Property Owners
a nd a ls o
appeared
to
be
a
f irst
fo r
th e t r ia l court
a s
there
seemed to
be confus ion
regarding
th e
exact procedure to util ize. Property Owners tried to
make
the a rgument to
th e
tr ial
cour t tha t
they
had been denied
the
ability
to
e n g a g e
in
discovery,
the
ability
to
obtain
any
subs tant ia l competent ev idence
ofthe i r ow n to
present
to
th e
court to
show
c a u s e
w hy
th e
City Cou nci l s complaint should no t be granted.
Counsel fo r
City
Counci l stated the fo l lowing
concerning the
request fo r a
cont inuance:
In this
c a s e th e
parties
received a notice ofbond
val idation a s
required by
Flor ida l aw, which
is more
notice than the 20-day
publ ished
notice
required
by
Section
75.06. S o
general ly
speaking,
in
a
bond val idat ion c a s e You r
Honor ,
we do anticipate
that th e
discovery will be taken
in
an expedi ted
fashion.
General ly , th e circuit
judges with
whom
have
been
deal ing in bond val idat ion c a s e s keep
th e t r ia l date fo r
th e bond
val idat ion
th e
same and
have a c a s e
management
order
order ing th e
d iscove ry to ta ke p la ce pr io r to tr ial .
(Emphasis
25
-
8/10/2019 Briefs filed by Scott Morris against Cape Corl's fire services assessment
32/51
added.)
(APP
0096-0097. )
The
tr ia l court
den ied the mot i on
fo r
cont inuance, apparen t l y n o t
because it
was unt imely, but on l y
upon
th e
t r ia l
court s , in t e rp re ta t ion tha t th e b on d val idat ion
statute does
n o t contempla te
a discovery
p rocess , even though
City
Co unc i l s
at to rney admi tted
that
it
was
par t
of
th e no rma l
process. Af t e r
its den ia l of
th e
mot ion fo r con tinuance , the Cour t apparen t l y ignored
its
three minute t ime l imit.
The trial court a b u s e d i ts discret ion in not g ran t ing the mot ion fo r
cont inuance.
There
was
n o a rgumen t presented
that
grant ing
the
mot ion
wou ld
be
pre jud ic ia l to City
Counc i l .
There
was
substant ia l
argument
presented
that
the Property
Owners would
be grea t ly pre jud iced
by
denia l
ofthe mot ion .
Property
Owners
asked
the
C ourt to
consider the f o l l ow ing
a s
examples ofthe
severity of
the
pre jud ice to they wou ld suffer
the t r ia l
court denied their mot ion
fo r
cont inuance:
The published no tice fo r the hea r ing
indicated
it
wou ld be
fo r one
hou r bu t even tua lly cont inued fo r
f ou r
days,
fo rc ing th e
Proper ty Owners
to
scramble,
a s best
they
could,
for , those f ou r days ofhear ings;
2 . Property Owners
were given
no
oppo r tun i t y
to depose
a n y persons
i nvo lved
with
th e
fire assessment inc luding M r.
Burton, th e City
Manager ,
th e
City
Attorney,
the Bus iness
Manager ,
th e
Finance
Director, th e
City Clerk , th e Fire
Chie f , members
ofCity
Counc i l o r
ind iv iduals with
th e
Lee County
Proper ty
26
-
8/10/2019 Briefs filed by Scott Morris against Cape Corl's fire services assessment
33/51
App ra is e r s o ffic e .
3. Prope r t y Owne r s
were
given no chance to co n d u ct d o cume n t
d is co ve ry . T he
State
A t t o r n e y
ind icated
tha t
he
r e ce iv e d th e documen t s , howev e r
no
documen t s we re prov ided
to
an y
of
th e Prope r t y Owne r s , pr io r to th e h e arin g.
Prope r t y
Owne r s had no chance to e xam in e a n y exhib i ts
be fore
o r dur ing t r ial.
4 Proper ty Owne r s were given no
opportuni ty
to
retain a n
expert
witness
fo r examinat ion
of th e
Bur ton Associa tes repor t and
th e repor t s
conclusions of spec ia l bene f i t
to th e
bu r dened p rope rt ie s .
5 No c a s e man ageme n t co n fe re n ce w a s he ld to
assure
t ha t there was a
level
playing f ield fo r
a ll
part ies.
6 Insuf f ic ient t ime to r e ta in
legal
representat ion.
Ci ty Counc i l wou l d n o t have been pre jud iced b y gran t ing th e mot i on
fo r
cont inuance a n d
sett ing
th e
hear ing
wi th in
sixty
days,
then
al lowing
t ime
fo r discovery.
Grea t in just ice
and pre jud ice
was
created
against
th e Proper ty
Owne r s b y th e t r ia l cou r t s den ia l of
the
mot i on fo r
cont inuance.
T he t r ia l cou rt s . den i a l of a mot i on
fo r
cont inuance was b r ough t before th e
Appe lla te Cou r t in
a
dissolut ion ofmarr iage
act ion
in F l em i ng v Fleming, 710
S o
The
r epresen ta t ive
fo r th e Sta te
ofFlo r ida
d id n o t a sk on e s ing le que s t io n
dur ing f ou r days ofhear ings,
ye t
is bel ieve(1
to
have r epr e sen te d th e in terests of th e
S t a t e
ofFlorida. (APP 0001-0707.)
27
-
8/10/2019 Briefs filed by Scott Morris against Cape Corl's fire services assessment
34/51
2 d
6 0 1 , 6 0 3 F l a .
4 * D CA
1 9 9 8 ) ,
w h e r e i n
in
rev ers i ng
th e
t r i a l c our t ,
th e
Ap p e l la te
C o u r t st at e d th e f o l l o w i n g :
m o t i o n fo r
c o n tin u a n c e is
a d d r e s s e d to
th e s ou nd j u d i c i a l
d i s c r e t i o n
of
th e
t r i a l
c o u r t
a n d a b s e n t
a b u s e
of
t h a t d i s c re t io n
th e
c o u r t s d e c i s i o n
will
n o t b e r e v e r s e d o n
a p p e a l .
F a c t o r s
to
b e
c o n s i d e r e d in d e t e rm in in g w h e t h e r th e t r i a l c o u r t a b u s e d
it s d i s c r e t i o n
in
d e n y i n g
th e
m o t i o n
fo r
c o n t i n u a n c e i n c l u d e
w h e t h e r
th e
d e n i a l of
t he c o n tin u a n c e
creates
a n i n j u s t i c e fo r
th e
m o v a n t ; w h e t h e r th e c a u s e of
th e
r e q u e s t fo r c o n t i n u a n c e
w a s
unforeseeable b y th e m o v a n t a nd n o t th e res u l t
ofd i l a t o r y
pract ices;
a nd w h e t h e r
th e o p p o sin g p a r t y w o u l d
suffer
a n y
p re ju d ic e o r i n c o n v e n i e n c e a s a r e s ul t of
a
c o n t i n u a n c e .
T h e
t r i a l
c o u r t s d e n i a l ofa
m o t i o n
fo r
c o n t i n u a n c e w a s
b e f o r e
th e A p p e l l a t e
C o u r t in a
t erm i nat i o n
ofp a r e n t a l
r i ght s
a c t i on in th e c a s e of
In th e In t e r e s t o fD . S .
B . R .
R . R . a n d
C . R .
Chi l d ren,
M . R .
m o t her v . D e p a r t m e n t
of
C h ild r en a n d
F a m i l y
S e r v i c e s 8 4 9
S o . 2 d
41 1 , 41 4 F l a . 2 d D C A 2 0 0 3 ) , w herei n th e A p p el la t e C o u r t in
r e v e r s i n g
th e
t r i a l c o u r t stated
th e
f o l l o w i n g :
w h e n d e n i a l ofc o n t i n u a n c e creates
i n j us t i c e ,
th e
a p p e l l a t e
c o u r t s
o b l i g a t i o n
to re c t i fy th e
injust ice
o u t w e i g h s th e
p o l i c y
of
n o t d is tu r b in g t r i a l
c o u r t s
r u lin g , p a r tic u l a r l y w h e n th e
o p p o s i n g p a r t y
w o u l d
s u f f e r n o i n j u r y
o r
g r e a t i n c o n v e n i e n c e .
T he re is n o t h i n g
w i t h i n
th e b o n d v a l i d a t i o n statutes w h i c h d i s a l l o w s
d i s c o v e r y .
D i s c o v e r y
p r o c e d u r e s a re a v a i l a b l e in a ll
ivil
c a s e s
a n d
t h e r e is
n o t
a
v a l i d
r e a s o n w h y
th e
p r o c e d u r e s a re n o t
a v a i l a b l e
in b o n d v a l i d a t i o n c a s e s .
2 8
-
8/10/2019 Briefs filed by Scott Morris against Cape Corl's fire services assessment
35/51
A R G U M E N T ISSUE
V
IV . THERE
IS
N O
S U B S T A N T I A L C O M P E T E N T E V I D E N C E
TO SUPPORT TH E F I N D I N G B Y C I T Y C O U N C I L A N D
TH E
T R I A L
C OU R T
T H A T
TIE R
O F
TH E
FIRE
ASSESSMENT
CO MPLI E S
W I T H
THE
REQUIREMENTS
O F
F L O R I D A
STATUTE 17 0 . 2 0 1.
S T A N D A R D O F R E V I E W ISSUE
V
T h is C ou rt re vie w s
th e trial court s f inding
of fact
fo r
substantial
competent
evidence
an d its conclusions of law, d e n o v o . Strand
v
E s ca m b i a
County,
Fl ori da,
9 9 2
S o 2 d 1 5 0
Fla.
2 0 0 8 ) . Th e findings will be erroneous n o t b a s e d on
substantial
evidence
H olland
v
Gross, 8 9 S o 2 d 2 5 5
Fla.
1 9 5 6 ) .
Florida Statu te 1 7 0.2 0 1 a) an d
b )
authorizes municipalit ies
t o a p p or tio n
th e
costs
of special
assessments
in tw o
different w a y s a s
fo l lo w s:
a) Th e f ront o r
square
footage
ofeach
parcel of land; o r
b )
A n alternative method ology, s o
long
a s th e amount ofth e
a s s e s s m e n t
fo r
each
parcel
of
land
is
n o t
in
excess
of
th e
proportional
benefits a s
compared to o t h e r
assessments
o n o t h e r p ar c e ls of land.
Some
explanation of th e
m et h od ology
fo r
th e Tier
of
th e
fire assessment
is
necessary to
th e understanding
w h y
it
is
arbitrary an d
w i t h o u t evidence to
support
it.
A c c ord in g to th e B u r t on Associates Fire A s s e s s m e n t Study F inal Re p o r t
Revised,
A u g u s t 2 2 ,
2 0 1 3 , Tier
is called R e s po n s e R e ad in e s s .
t is
described
in
th e s t u d y a s fo l lo w s:
Th e City maintains th e facilities, e q u i p m e n t an d p e r s o n n e l
2 9
-
8/10/2019 Briefs filed by Scott Morris against Cape Corl's fire services assessment
36/51
necessary to provide fire protection
services
on
a
24 hou r
a day, seven
days
a
week,
year-round
basis
to
all parcels
in th e
City.
This state of response readiness is
provided
by
th e f ixed costs of th e system
tha t are
not discretionary and
t hat are not deployed in the ac tual response
to
calls.
(APP 0915-0916 .)
According
to
th e legislation
passed by
City Counci l
wh ich employs
th e
methodology
crafted by
Burton
Associates, all unimproved parcels of land will
be
a s s e s s e d th e same
dollar amount , regardless of
size,
regardless
of location and
regardless ofwhether theyare residential o r commercial. Th e
Tier
assessment is
b a s e d on
a
fixed dollar
amoun t per parcel
identification
number
assigned
by
th e
Lee County Property
Appraiser.
At th e evidentiary hearing
in
October, 2013 , t he
Chie fof
th e Fire
Department
was asked
it would
take
more resources to f igh t a
fire on
a 1 0 0 acre
parce l than it would
on
an 80 x 1 2 5 lot. His answer
was,
unequivocally yes. (APP
0118-0119. ) Property Owners
contend the
assessment fo r a sm all parce l
is
in
e x c e s s of th e
proportional
benefi t it
receives a s compared
to
other a s s e s s m e n t s on
larger
parcels. In reality,
th e smal l parcel
owner is subsidizing th e
cost of th e Tier
assessment fo r th e la rge r parce l owner.
How
can th is be a fair
appor t ionment
based on th e requirements of th e
law?
Bur ton
Associates report
relied
on b y City
Counci l
does
not contain
subs tant ia l
competen t
evidence
to
suppor t th e conclus ions
t ha t a ll
parcels
benef i t
30
-
8/10/2019 Briefs filed by Scott Morris against Cape Corl's fire services assessment
37/51
equal ly ,
regardless
of
the i r
size a nd m a k eup . S in ce th e repor t
fai ls
to be
suppor ted
by subs tan t ia l comp e ten t ev idence ,
it means th e
f ind ings
by
th e
City
Counc i l
a re
l i kewise
n o t suppor ted by subs tan t i a l compe ten t evidence. P a n am a City Beach
Redeve lopment
Agency v .
State
ofFlorida, 831 So. 2d
66 2 (Fla . 2002 ).
The
t ranscr ip t of th e
proceed ings
from City
Counc i l
on
Augus t
26 ,
2013, establ ishes a
l ack
of subs tan t ia l comp e ten t ev idence
fo r th e
leg i s la t ive fi nd ings .
(APP
1056 -
1 2 0 4 .
Cape Coral
is
unique in tha t there are m a n y undeve loped a r e a s
which have
parcels tha t
range from
40
x
1 2 5
lo ts to
hundreds of a c r e s . A couple ofexamples
will
ma k e th e poin t . Assume
a
lo t exists tha t measure s 40 x 1 2 5 feet fo r a to ta l of
5,000
square
feet. Compa re
this
aga ins t
a
parce l which conta ins 223.89 a c r e s
or
9,752,648 s q u a r e feet b a s e d on 43,
5 60 s q u a r e
feet per a c r e .
Accord ing
to
th e
fire
protect ion
assessment
which
h a s
been adopted
by
City
Counc i l
the
in i t ia l a s s e s s m e n t fo r a vacan t p a r ce l wi th
one
parce l
ident i f icat ion
n umbe r
is
62.02.
How
can this be
an a p p o r t i o nmen t t h a t
fo l lows th e mand a te
in
170.201 (b)? Is it
fair ,
j us t a nd equi tab le
to
a s s e s s each
40 x
125 foo t
lo t
th e same
amoun t
a s th e 223.89
acre
parcel? The 223.8 9 acre pa rce l conta ins
9,752 ,648
square
feet wh i ch is 1,9 50 t imes l a rger than th e 40 x 125 lot. The
assessment
fo r
th e 40 x 1 2 5 lo t is c lear ly
in excess
of
th e
p r opo r tio na l bene f it received by the 40 x
1 2 5 foot lo t when compared
to
the 223.89
acre p a rc el. T he e n tire scheme smel ls
of
31
-
8/10/2019 Briefs filed by Scott Morris against Cape Corl's fire services assessment
38/51
discrimination
against
sma ll land owne rs . T hu s,
th e apport ionment
methodology
is
arbitrary.
Blacks Law
Dictionary,
Fifth
Edition,
1979,
defines arbitrary in
part a s
follows:
Wi thou t
adequate determining
principle;
not founded
in
th e
nature of things;
nonrat ional; not
done
or
acting
accord ing to
reason
or j udgment .
Fisher
v
Board of
County
Commissioners of
Dade County,
84 So. 2d 572
(Fla.
1956), h a s
not
been overturned by
the
this Court. It is
an
important c a s e to
examine
a s it relates to the substantia l competent ev idence which
Bur ton
Associates mus t have
to
support their conclusions.
The Florida
Supreme Court stated
in
part th e following at
pages
575,
576,
and 577 of its opinion.
Al though
th e
County
Engineer
submits
th e
opinion
that special a s s e s s m e n t s on a ll real property within
the
district,
including
homesteads, should be in
proportion to
assessed valuation
of
such real property
because
in h is
opinion this
is
in
proport ion to th e
bene fit to be
received , nevertheless,
in
Section
6-02
of th e report
it is readi ly admi tted tha t n o exact valuat ion ofbenefits
has
been made
In fact,
except fo r th e
bald conclusions
submit ted
there
is
nothing
in
this record
to
s how any
actual
attempt
to
evaluate
th e benefits
to
be received
by
th e
var ious properties
abutt ing th e
streets to
be
improved.
The
unsupported
conclusion of th e County Engineer
under the c ircumstances revea led in this record
regardless
ofhis
abil ity
and integrity cannot be accepted
a s
32
-
8/10/2019 Briefs filed by Scott Morris against Cape Corl's fire services assessment
39/51
dete rmina t ive
of th e
cons t i tu t iona l quest ion i nvo lved.
A
spec ia l
benef i t assessment mus t be levied according
to th e par t icu lar benef it s rece ived by
th e rea l
p roper ty
in
quest ion
a nd
in
order to susta in
th e assessment ,
there
mus t be som e p r oo f of th e
benefi ts
other
than
th e
dic tum
of
th e
govern i ng
agency.
The.actua l
cost
of
th e
i m p r o vemen t
mus t
be
direct ly related to th e spec ia l benef i t a l leged to
be
received by th e p roper ty
imp roved .
The
Bur ton Assoc ia tes repor t
rel ied
upon by City
Counc i l
a s
the i r
subs tan t ia l compe ten t
evidence fo r th e two tie r approach,
conta ins
th e fo l lowing
s ta temen t to justify th e benef i t fo r
a
vacan t pa rce l
based
on readiness to
serve:
A
given parce l is benefit ted
ove r t ime
by
t ha t
ava i lab i l i ty
a lone, even
when th a t
parce l d o e s n o t generate
a
ca l l
fo r service, through
increased
value and marketab i l i ty ,
heightened u s e
and enjoyment ofth e proper ty and
reduced insurance premiums . (APP 0918.)
N o subs tan t ia l comp e ten t ev idence
wa s
received by
City
Counc i l
o r to
the t r ia l
cour t
to
prove
increased value and marketab i l i ty , heightened u s e
and
en joymen t of
th e p roper ty
and
r educed insu rance
p rem ium s . (APP 1056-1204. )
(APP
0001-0489.)
It
is
hard
to
believe
that
someone m ay purchase fire insurance
fo r
a
vacan t
parce l
of la nd. E ach c a s e mus t turn o n its ow n set
of
fa c ts a n d e vid en ce. The City
Counc i l
rece ived no
tes t imony
from
a n y r e a l
estate
p ro fe ss iona l t ha t v a lida t ed
th e c la im
tha t th e assessment
i ncreased
va lue and marketab i l i ty . N o
t e s t imony
was
prov ided by any in su rance
p ro fe ss iona l tha t
th e
fire assessmen t prov ides th e
33
-
8/10/2019 Briefs filed by Scott Morris against Cape Corl's fire services assessment
40/51
benef i t of
reduc ing
fire i nsu rance
costs fo r
parcels ofproper ty , par t i cu lar ly vacan t
parce ls.
(APP
1056-1204. )
There
mu s t
be
a t le a st
a
scint i l la ofevidence to
suppo r t
th e f ind ings . No n e was prov ided in th e c a s e a t bar .
Savage
v .
State
of
Flo r ida , sup ra
and F ishe r