Florida club appeals property appraiser's assessment. (Government Watch).

Venice Golf and Country Club challenged the Florida Property Appraiser's assessment of its property for the years 1999 and 2000 and filed suit. Assessments for their three parcels amounted to $8,536,591 in 1999 and $8,638,500 in 2000. In 1999, the property appraiser's assessment considered all three traditionally accepted approaches to value: income, comparable sales, and cost. The appraiser based his final assessment on both the income and comparable sales approaches. When asked, Venice Golf did not provide him with any information regarding the actual income and expenses of the property.

However, the appraiser received financial data from other golf courses in Sarasota which he used to calculate an income approach value based on the income and expenses that are typical of other golf courses in the county. In 2000, another appraiser was forced to calculate a value based on the income approach without having any information regarding the actual operating expenses because of Venice and other golf courses not providing information. Ultimately, the appraiser used a combination of the cost and market approaches for 2000.

To challenge the property appraiser's assessment, Venice Golf presented the testimony of a real estate appraiser, planner, and economist. Using the cost approach, he arrived at a value of $4,588,000. The sales comparison approach indicated a value of $4,680,000. Using these figures, he arrived at a final value in 1999 of $4,400,000. In 2000, he used the same figures and methods to arrive at a final value of $4,307,000.

The trial court concluded that Venice Golf had established that the assessment did not reflect the just value of the property. Therefore, the trial court ordered the Property Appraiser's assessment for both 1999 and 2000 reduced to $6,154,300.

The Second District Court of Appeals of Florida said that the trial court could not use its independent judgment, absent the introduction of competent evidence, to determine the valuation of property. It is not the function of the court to take the place of the property appraiser, the appeals court said. Thus, since the record lacked competent, substantial evidence of value, which could have been provided by Venice Golf, the trial court should have remanded the matter to the property appraiser to reassess the property. For a copy of this decision, please visit www.cmaa.org/legislat/reports/oct021.htm or contact Henry Wallmeyer, at [e-mail] or at [phone].