Okaloosa County Property Appraiser v. Carol A. Hamby, 128 So.3d 802 (Fla 1st DCA 2013)
Dec 13, 2013OUTCOME: Success (per curiam denial of Opposing Party's Petition for Writ of Prohibition)
First District Court of Appeals of Florida, Case No. 1D13-533 (appellate court writ action resolved in favor of client/respondent/taxpayer). Plaintiff/Appellate-Respondent ("Taxpayer"), by Mr. Cranfor ... d, filed suit asserting that Defendant/Appellate-Petitioner ("PA") deprived Taxpayer of the equity of Taxpayer's claimed-homestead improperly both (1) procedurally, without notice and opportunity to be heard (a violation of the due process clause of the Federal and Florida Constitutions) and, (2) substantively, upon a faulty determination by the PA that the Taxpayer did not use claimed-homestead as Taxpayer's permanent residence. PA moved the Circuit Court to dismiss the action asserting that Section 194.171, F.S. deprived said jurisdiction upon the elapse of sixty (60) days from the mailing of a 'Notice of Intent to Lien' under 196.161, F.S. Taxpayer, by Mr. Cranford, filed written argument and orally argued (1) that Section 194.171, F.S. did not operate upon 196.161 retroactive actions, (2) that even if it could, PA failed to demonstrate compliance with the requirement of 'certification under 193.122(2), F.S.' required by 194.171, F.S., (3) that Taxpayer's timely petition to the Value Adjustment Board (improperly summarily dismissed without hearing) and prompt filing of Circuit Court action thereafter, each served to ensure that the Circuit Court did hold jurisdiction and could, therefore, adjudicate those claims presented. Taxpayer, by these arguments, prevailed upon this issue at the Circuit Court. PA petitioned the First District Court of Appeals of Florida ("1st DCA") to issue a writ of prohibition that would have restrained the Circuit Court from continuing in the action on the same basis. Ordinarily, the appellate court would review the matter and issue an order to show cause directing the respondent to file a written brief to resist the petition for writ. Sensing an opportunity to save the client's resources, Mr. Cranford moved to supplement those materials filed by the PA with those materials the Taxpayer, by Mr. Cranford, had filed in the Circuit Court. The 1st DCA granted motion to supplement and issued a denial of PA's petition for writ of certiorari via a per curiam denial. Thus, Taxpayer prevailed at the appellate level without having to file a written brief or expend those significant resources ordinarily necessary when involved in appellate-level litigation.