Parrish Answer Brief (Fla. 4th DCA)

8/10/2019 Parrish Answer Brief (Fla. 4th DCA)

1/29

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDAFOURTH DISTRICT

CASE NO. 4D14-101LOWER CASE NO. 13-023090

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERSBROWARD COUNTY, etc.,

Appellant

vs.

LORI PARRISH, etc.,

Appellee_______________________________/

ANSWER BRIEF OF LORI PARRISH

WILLIAM R. SCHERER BRUCE S. ROGOWDANIEL S. WEINGER, ESQ. TARA A. CAMPIONCONRAD & SCHERER, LLP BRUCE S. ROGOW, P.A.Counsel for Appellee Counsel for Appellee633 South Federal Highway 500 E. Broward Blvd. #1930Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394Telephone: (954) 462-5500 Telephone: (954) 767-8909Facsimile: (954) 463-9244 Facsimile: (954) [email protected] [email protected]@conradscherer.com [email protected]@conradscherer.com

E-Copy Received Apr 14, 2014 3:
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/29

ii

Table of Contents

Table of Contents ............................................................................................ ii

Table of Authorities ....................................................................................... iii

Preface ............................................................................................................. 1

Statement of Case and Facts ........................................................................... 2

Summary of Argument ................................................................................... 8

Argument ...................................................................................................... 10

I. Standard of Review ............................................................................. 10

II. The Trial Court Correctly Found the Property Appraiser is Entitledto a Writ of Mandamus Requiring the County Commission to Perform the

Ministerial Act of Issuing Payments to the Property Appraiser for theProperty Appraisers DOR FY-2014 Final Budget .................................. 10

III. The Writ of Mandamus Issued by the Trial Court Does Not Violatethe Separation of Powers Doctrine ........................................................... 18

Conclusion .................................................................................................... 21

Certificate of Service .................................................................................... 23

Certificate of Type Size and Style ................................................................ 23


3/29

iii

Table of Authorities

Cases

Anthony v. Gary J. Rotella & Assocs., P.A.,906 So.2d 1205 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) ....................................................... 10

Bailey v. State,100 So. 3d 213 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) ......................................................... 11

Brown v. State,358 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 1978) ......................................................................... 20

Chiles v. Children A, B, C, D, E, & F,589 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 1991) ................................................................. 19, 20

Coal. for Adequacy & Fairness in Sch. Funding, Inc. v. Chiles,680 So. 2d 400 (Fla. 1996) ....................................................................... 19

Florida Dept. of Children & Families v. Y.C.,82 So. 3d 1139 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) ......................................................... 19

Harvard ex rel. J.H. v. Vill. of Palm Springs,98 So. 3d 645 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) .......................................................... 10

Huffman v. State,813 So.2d 10 (Fla. 2000) .......................................................................... 10

Migliore v. City of Lauderhill,415 So. 2d 62 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982) .......................................................... 11

Rosado v. State,1 So.3d 1147 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) ........................................................... 10

Shea v. Cochran,680 So.2d 628 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) ......................................................... 12

Turner v. Singletary623 So.2d 537 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993) ......................................................... 10

Statutes

Fla. Stat. 129.01 ............................................................................................ 2

Fla. Stat. 192.091 ................................................................................. passim

Fla. Stat. 380.07 .......................................................................................... 16

Fla. Stat., 195.087 ................................................................................ passim


4/29

iv

Rules

Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(b)(1)(A) ........................................................................ 1

Other Authorities

Fla. Atty Gen. Op. 97-02 (1997) ................................................................... 14


5/29

1

Preface

This Answer Brief is submitted on behalf of LORI PARRISH, Petitioner

below.

Board of County Commissioners, Broward County, has appealed, pursuant

to Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(b)(1)(A), the final order of the trial court granting the

Petition for Writ of Mandamus of Petitioner, LORI PARRISH.

Board of County Commissioners, Broward County, is referred to as

Appellant, the County Commission, or the County.

LORI PARRISH is referred to as Appellee or the Property Appraiser.

The following symbols will be used:

R. ___ references are to the Record on Appeal.

I.B. ___ references are to the Initial Brief of Appellant.

Unless otherwise indicated, all emphasis is supplied by the writer.


6/29

2

Statement of Case and Facts

Appellee brought this action in her official capacity as Broward County

Property Appraiser, a constitutional officer, per Article VIII, (1)(d), Florida

Constitution. Appellant, the County Commission, is statutorily required to fund

the Property Appraisers budget as approved by the Florida Department of

Revenue (DOR). See Fla. Stat., 195.087, 192.091 and 129.01. Florida

Statutes, 195.087(1)(a) sets forth the procedure for approval of the Property

Appraisers budget, providing:

On or before June 1 of each year, every property appraiser, regardlessof the form of county government, shall submit to the Department ofRevenue a budget for the operation of the property appraisers officefor the ensuing fiscal year beginning October 1. The propertyappraiser shall submit his or her budget in the manner and formrequired by the department. A copy of such budget shall be furnishedat the same time to the board of county commissioners. The

department shall, upon proper notice to the county commission andproperty appraiser, review the budget request and may amend orchange the budget request as it deems necessary, in order that the

budget be neither inadequate nor excessive. On or before July 15, thedepartment shall notify the property appraiser and the board of countycommissioners of its tentative budget amendments and changes. Priorto August 15, the property appraiser and the board of countycommissioners may submit additional information or testimony to thedepartment respecting the budget. On or before August 15, the

department shall make its final budget amendmentsor changes tothe budget and shall provide noticethereof to the property appraiserand board of county commissioners. Consistent with the process laidout above: (Emphasis added).


7/29


8/29

4

On August 15, 2013, after considering the County Commissions

recommendations as provided by Ms. Henry, the DOR provided formal notice to

the Property Appraiser and the County Commission of the Property Appraisers

final budget in the amount of $18,712,207.00 (DOR FY-2014 Final Budget). (R.

32-40.)

On September 24, 2013, the County Commission held its final public

hearing on the Countys own budget, which was to include the DOR FY-2014

Final Budget as mandated by the Florida Statutes. (R. 41-86). Contrary to statute,

the County Commission voted to approve a County budget which did not include

the DOR FY-2014 Final Budget, but rather the Countys desired budget for the

Property Appraiser in the amount of $14,947,000.00, which had already been

rejected by the DOR. Id.

At the subsequent October 1, 2013 County Commission meeting, the County

Commission voted to appeal the DOR FY-2014 Final Budget to the Administration

Commission. (R. 87-158.) While there was significant discussion and even a

motion to amend the County Commissions budget to, as required by law, comply

with the DOR FY-2014 Final Budget while any appeal was pending, the County

Commission instead and again, without any legal authority, confirmed its

September 24th decision to impose its own budget on the Property Appraiser. (R.

87-158.)


9/29

5

Separate and apart from the County Commissions unilateral decision to

deviate from the legally mandated process, the Property Appraiser, in accordance

with Florida Statutes, 192.091 and as a consequence of the DOR FY-2014 Final

Budget, submitted to the County Commission its request for the statutorily

mandated quarterly draw based on the DOR approved budget. (R. 164.) The

quarterly draw, per the DOR FY-2014 Final Budget, totaled $4,140,881.75. Id.

On October 3, 2013, the County Commission advised the Property Appraiser it

would be providing only $3,963,750.00, thus withholding $177,131.75 in

operational funding for the quarter. (R. 161.) In so doing, the County Commission

unilaterally and without legal authority adjusted the amount to reflect the County

Commissions desired budget rather than the DOR FY-2014 Final Budget. Id.

Significantly, despite the County Commissions final action deviating from the

statutorily mandated payment, the County Commission conceded at both the

September 24th and the October 1st commission meetings that the DOR sets the

Property Appraisers budget and the County Commission must fulfill the DORs

directive even if the County Commission disagrees and even if the County

Commission chooses to appeal the DORs final budget. (R. 71-129.) For example,

the following statements were made, among others, by County Commissioners

and/or the County Attorney at the meetings:

MAYOR JACOBS: The difference between these twoconstitutional officers is one could go and basically thumb their


10/29

6

nose at what the Countys budget was and send a differentbudget tothe Department of Revenueand it puts theProperty Appraiser in a significantly different position, because[her] budgets gets submitted and approved [by the DOR] . . .the Property Appraisers in a very unique position over theother constitutional officers, and Im concerned about this.

(R. 71-74.)

COMMISSIONER KIAR: You mentioned it yourself Mayorand others. The Property Appraiser is treated differently thanthe other constitutional officers. . . . The difference is we owethe Property Appraiser the money that the Department ofRevenue approved. We technically owe that money to her.

Thats money that were supposed to appropriate to [her].

If were upset with that, we can appeal to the cabinet. But wehave to appropriate that money. That is technically her money.Its been approved by the Department of Revenue. Its been setup that [way]. We owe her that money.

(R. 74.)

COMMISSIONER WEXLER: And for us, we need to weneed to, because I believe we have no choice here today . . . ifthe Department of Revenue has set the Property Appraisers

budget, I believe we have to fulfill that directive; however wehave an appeal process that we can go down.

(R. 101.)

COMMSSIONER KIAR: I actually disrespectfully disagreewith [the issue of] whether or not we have to provide Ms.

Parrish this money.

She's different than the other constitutional officers. When theDepartment of Revenue approves a budget that means we haveto give it to her. Shes entitled to it. I think that we need togive it to her. And I know that its your legal opinion that wegive either the money that was appropriated in our budget or the


11/29

7

Department of Revenues but I dont believe theres any legalauthority to back that up. . . .

(R. 128-29.)

On October 9, 2013, the County Commission filed an appeal of the DOR

FY-2014 Final Budget to the Administration Commission, once again

acknowledging Section 195.087(1), Florida Statutes, gives [the DOR]

unrestrained and unrestricted authority to establish county budgets. Shortly

thereafter, the Property Appraiser filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus on the

grounds that the County Commissions unlawful withholding of $177,131.75 in the

quarterly draw of the DOR FY-2014 Final Budget is an essential departure from

the requirements of law and due process, and will cause the Property Appraiser

irreparable material harm by preventing the Property Appraiser from performing

her statutory duty. (R. 1-164.) The trial court agreed and entered a Writ of

Mandamus on December 31, 2013. (R. 328-30.) This appeal follows.


12/29

8

Summary of Argument

Because the County Commissions duty to adhere to the DORs final budget

is wholly ministerial, the trial court correctly found its refusal to fully fund the

Property Appraiser warranted mandamus relief, as it is the precise type of agency

inaction mandamus is designed to redress.

The Property Appraiser has a clear legal right pursuant to Florida Statutes

192.091 to receive payment in full from the County Commission for the Property

Appraisers DOR FY-2014 Final Budget. There is nothing discretionary about the

mandates in 192.091 that the budget approved by the DOR shall be the basis

upon which the tax authorities shall be billed and payments shall be made

quarterly. Accordingly, unless and until the Governor and Cabinet, sitting as the

Administration Commission, amend the Property Appraisers DOR FY-2014 Final

Budget, the budget stands as approved and must be proportionately funded by the

County Commission.

The only governmental body with the authority to amend the DOR final

budget is the Governor and the Cabinet sitting as the Administration Commission

and only then if it finds that any aspect of the budget is unreasonable in light of

the workload of the office of the property appraiser. Fla. Stat., 195.087(1)(b).

There is, however, nothing in 195.087 to suggest the county commission is

relieved of its statutorily mandated duties to adhere to the DORs final budget and


13/29

9

make the full quarterly payment by merely filing an appeal with the Administration

Commission. If the legislature intended the County to receive an automatic stay

pending an appeal to the Administration Commission, it would have provided for

one.

The Writ of Mandamus issued by the trial court does not violate the

separation of powers doctrine. The claim that the trial courts writ violates the

separation of powers doctrine is no more persuasive than the Countys claim that it

had the discretion to refuse to fully fund the budget in the first place. Similarly,

the Countys assertion that the writ interferes with the discretion of the

Administration Commission completely misses the mark. The writ entered by the

trial court does nothing to interfere with the Administration Commissions

discretion to amend the final budget. Instead, in issuing the writ the court simply

found that under the clear language of Chapters 192 and 195, the County has no

discretion to deviate from the DORs final budget unless and until the

Administration Commission chooses to exercise itsdiscretion.


14/29

10

Argument

I. STANDARD OF REVIEW

The standard of review from a trial courts decision on a petition for writ of

mandamus is abuse of discretion except to the extent the appellate court must

interpret a statute, in which case the review is de novo. SeeHarvard ex rel. J.H. v.

Vill. of Palm Springs, 98 So. 3d 645, 646 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (citing Rosado v.

State, 1 So.3d 1147, 1148 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009), and Anthony v. Gary J. Rotella &

Assocs., P.A., 906 So.2d 1205 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)).

II. THE TRIAL COURT CORRECTLY FOUND THE

PROPERTY APPRAISER IS ENTITLED TO A WRIT OF

MANDAMUS REQUIRING THE COUNTY COMMISSION TO

PERFORM THE MINISTERIAL ACT OF ISSUING

PAYMENTS TO THE PROPERTY APPRAISER FOR THE

PROPERTY APPRAISERS DOR FY-2014 FINAL BUDGET

A petitioner seeking a writ of mandamus must show a clear legal right to the

requested relief, the respondent has an indisputable legal duty to perform the

requested action, and there is no other adequate remedy available. See Huffman v.

State, 813 So.2d 10, 11 (Fla. 2000). Although a writ of mandamus cannot be used

to compel a public agency clothed with discretion to exercise its discretion in a

particular manner, see Turner v. Singletary, 623 So.2d 537, 538 (Fla. 1st DCA

1993), it is axiomatic that mandamus will lie when a public agency fails to perform

a ministerial duty which requires no discretion. SeeBailey v. State, 100 So. 3d


15/29

11

213, 219 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (To be entitled to a writ of mandamus, the

petitioner must show the existence of a clear legal right on his or her part, a

ministerial duty on the part of the respondent, and the absence of any other

adequate legal remedy);Migliore v. City of Lauderhill, 415 So. 2d 62, 63 (Fla. 4th

DCA 1982) approved,431 So. 2d 986 (Fla. 1983) (It has long been established

that mandamus lies to compel the performance of a specific imperative ministerial

duty). Because the County Commissions duty to adhere to the DORs final

budget is wholly ministerial, the trial court correctly found that its refusal to fully

fund the Property Appraiser warranted mandamus relief. The Countys refusal to

follow the law is the precise type of agency inaction mandamus is designed to

redress.

The Property Appraiser has a clear legal right pursuant to Florida Statutes

192.091 to receive payment quarterly, and in full, from the County Commission

based on the Property Appraisers DOR FY-2014 Final Budget. The statute

provides:

(1)(a) The budget of the property appraiser's office, as approved bythe Department of Revenue, shall be the basisupon which the severaltax authorities of each county, except municipalities and the district

school board, shall be billed by the property appraiser for servicesrendered. Each such taxing authority shall be billedan amount that

bears the same proportion to the total amount of the budget as itsshare of ad valorem taxes bore to the total levied for the precedingyear. All municipal and school district taxes shall be considered astaxes levied by the county for purposes of this computation.


16/29

12

(b) Payments shall be made quarterly by each such taxingauthority

SeeFla. Stat. 192.091(1)(a)-(b). (Emphasis added).

The fatal flaw in the Countys argument is its failure to recognize the

difference between shall and may. There is nothing discretionary about the

mandate of 192.091 that the budget approved by the DOR shall be the basis

upon which the tax authorities shall be billed and payments shall be made

quarterly. Therefore, unless and until the Governor and Cabinet, sitting as the

Administration Commission, amend the Property Appraisers DOR FY-2014 Final

Budget, the budget stands as approved and must be proportionately funded by the

County Commission.

The action requested from the County Commission is a textbook example of

a ministerial act. A duty or act is defined as ministerial when there is no room for

the exercise of discretion, and the performance being required is directed by law.

Shea v. Cochran, 680 So.2d 628, 629 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (citations omitted).

Once the DOR approved and made final the Property Appraisers FY-2014 budget,

on August 15, 2013, the County Commission had an indisputable and non-

discretionary duty per Florida Statutes, 192.091 and 195.087, to fund the

Property Appraisers annual operational budget.

Although 195.087(1)(a) provides that a copy of the Property Appraisers

proposed budget be furnished to the Board of County Commissioners, it does not


17/29


18/29

14

Viewing the final sentence in its entirety, it is clear the Property Appraisers

final budget is subject to amendment throughout the entire year.2 The Countys

misbegotten view of the language leads to the illogical conclusion that the budget

could never become final because it is always subject to amendment. When

reading sections sections 192.091 and 195.087 in pari materia, it is obvious the

final action of the Department of Revenue is the final budget unless and until the

final budget is amended (either through an appeal to the Administration

Commission or through a subsequent budget amendment request), at which point

the amended budget becomes the final budget in its stead. There is nothing in

these statutes to suggest, however, that the County Commission is authorized to

usurp the discretionary function of the Department of Revenue and ignore its own

mandatory duty to fund the approved budget.

In Fla. Atty Gen. Op. 97-02 (1997), the Attorney General was asked, under

the same statutory scheme, whether the budget of the county tax collector was

subject to approval from the DOR, the board of county commissioners, or both.

The AG found the DOR was solely responsible for the tax collectors budget under

195.087.

2 This is consistent with the formal notice of the final budget provided on August 15 by theDOR, in which the Departments Budget Supervisor advised this final budget, as approved bythe Department of Revenue, may only be amended through a budget amendment requested bythe Property Appraiser or an appeal to the Governor and Cabinet sitting as the AdministrationCommission. (R. 33).


19/29

15

The board of county commissioners may address objections orconcerns regarding the budget of the tax collector to the Departmentof Revenue. However, it is the department that is charged under thestatute with determining whether the budget is adequate. Once such adetermination has been made by the department, the statute prohibits areduction or increase without the departments approval.

Nevertheless, the County Commission violated the prohibition by reducing the

Property Appraisers budget without so much as seeking, much less receiving, the

DORs approval.

The only governmental body with the authority to amend the DOR final

budget is the Governor and the Cabinet sitting as the Administration Commission

if it finds that any aspect of the budget is unreasonable in light of the workload of

the office of the property appraiser. Fla. Stat., 195.087(1)(b). There is nothing

in 195.087 to suggest that filing an appeal to the Administration Commission

relieves the Commission of its statutorily mandated duties to adhere to the DORs

final budget and to make full quarterly payments to the Property Appraiser.

Critically, under the express language of section 195.087(2), the review by the

Administration Commission is not even mandatory, but wholly discretionary: The

Governor and Cabinet, sitting as the Administration Commission, may hear

appeals. (Emphasis added). Thus, if there were no court ordered relief, as was

obtained here, the Property Appraiser could only sit by while the County

Commission files an appeal which may never be heard. There is no timetable for

the appeal to the Administration Commission even if granted. In fact, as of the


20/29

16

time of filing this brief, the Administration Commission has still not given any

indication as to when or if it will consider the Countys appeal. Clearly the remedy

is mandatory relief to preserve the Property Appraisers right to the funds.

If the Legislature intended the County to receive an automatic stay pending

an appeal to the Administration Commission, it would have provided it. Florida

Statutes 380.07, which concerns appeals to the Florida Land and Water

Adjudicatory Commission from certain development orders by property owners,

developers, or state land planning agencies, provides an example of the legislature

doing that. The Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission has the same

makeup as the Administration Commission (i.e., it is composed of the Governor

and the Cabinet). However, unlike appeals to the Administration Commission

under 195.087(2), appeals to the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory

Commission pursuant to 380.07 trigger an automatic stay. See Fla. Stat.

380.07(4) (The filing of the petition stays the effectiveness of the order until

after the completion of the appeal process).

By not including a similar stay provision in 195.087, the legislature

intended what is evident from the statute itself: county commissions are required to

perform their ministerial duties of funding the Department of Revenues final

budgets until such time as the Administration Commission chooses to exercise its

discretion whether to amend. The difference in the procedure between the two


21/29

17

statutes makes sense in light of the nature of the interests at stake. The Florida

Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission hears appeals from development

orders, therefore it is logical to maintain the status quo until the appeal is heard.

Conversely, the County Commissions failure to fund the budget interferes with

the operations of a constitutionally mandated office, requiring compliance pending

any budget review.

There can be no doubt if the County Commission completely withheld all

funds from the Property Appraiser, the fact it filed an appeal under section 195.087

could not prevent the Property Appraiser from seeking the performance of its

ministerial task through a mandamus petition. Withholding less than the amount

budgeted by the DOR is a distinction of degree having no bearing on the

dereliction of the mandatory duty to pay quarterly the full portion of the DOR FY

approved budget.

While the County Commission has the legal right to ask the Administration

Commission to retroactively amend the DOR FY-2014 Final Budget, nothing in

Florida law gives the County Commission the legal right to withhold any of the

approved funds from the Property Appraiser in the interim. A writ of mandamus is

the Property Appraisers only legal remedy to seek recovery of the withheld DOR

FY-2014 Final Budget funds and compel the County Commission to comply with

its statutory duty.


22/29

18

III. THE WRIT OF MANDAMUS ISSUED BY THE TRIAL

COURT DOES NOT VIOLATE THE SEPARATION OF

POWERS DOCTRINE

Although raised as the first argument in its Initial Brief, the County

Commissions claim that the writ entered by the trial court violates the separation

of powers doctrine was only, at best, tangentially raised in the trial court. In any

event, the argument is without merit.

The County claims [t]he trial court encroached on the power of the states

executive branch by ordering, on an indefinite interim basis, relief that only the

Administration Commission is empowered to grant. (I.B. at p. 9.) Although the

Administration Commission is the only body from which the County can seek

relief, it is not an encroachment to have a court compel, in the interim, the

Countys mandatory duty to perform its ministerial function.

The Countys assertion that the writ interferes with the discretion of the

Administration Commission completely misses the mark. The writ entered by the

trial court does nothing to interfere with the Countys appeal to the Administrative

Commission and the Administration Commissions discretion to amend the final

budget. In issuing the writ the court simply found that, under the clear language of

Chapters 192 and 195, the County has no discretion to deviate from the DORs

final budget unless and until the Administration Commission chooses to exercise

itsdiscretion.


23/29

19

While the cases offered by the County speak of legal principles related to

separation of powers, they have no bearing here, where the County had no

discretion to act and the writ does not interfere with the Administration

Commissions ultimate discretion. For example, in Florida Dept. of Children &

Families v. Y.C., 82 So. 3d 1139, 1142 n.8 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012), the court

recognized the separation of powers doctrine is violated where a court on its own

motion agrees to require executive action which is otherwise within the executive

agencys own discretion. As discussed supra, there is nothing discretionary about

the Countys obligations to fully fund the Property Appraisers DOR final budget.

SeeFla. Stat. 192.091(1)(a)-(b) (The budget of the property appraiser's office, as

approved by the Department of Revenue, shallbe the basis [e]ach such taxing

authority shall be billed [p]ayments shall be made quarterly) (emphasis

supplied).

The Countys reliance upon cases concerning appropriations of funds is

similarly unavailing. In Coal. for Adequacy & Fairness in Sch. Funding, Inc. v.

Chiles, 680 So. 2d 400 (Fla. 1996), the plaintiffs sought declaratory relief that the

state failed to allocate adequate resources for a uniform system of free public

schools. Id. at 402. The court found, under the Florida Constitution, it was up to

the legislature to determine how much money to appropriate to education. In

Chiles v. Children A, B, C, D, E, & F, 589 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 1991), the court


24/29

20

recognized that the legislature may not delegate its powers, and under the

separation of powers doctrine, [a]ny attempt by the legislature to abdicate its

particular constitutional duty is void. Id. at 264. This case has nothing to do with

the legislative or executive branches abdicating their powers. Nor does it involve

an appropriation of funds by the court. In fact, the writ issued by the trial court

here merely insures compliance with the Property Appraisers Department of

Revenue FY 2014 Final Budget. The writ also serves to undo the County

Commissions misappropriation of the Property Appraisers funds. The

Administration Commissions power to amend the budget is wholly unaffected by

the writ. As the trial court recognized, the writ is not intended to usurp the

budgetary authority of . . . the Administration Commission . . . but merely directs

[the County Commission] to complyand discharge their ministerial act of funding

the budget for [the Property Appraiser], as approved or subsequently amended by

the DOR. (R. 328-30.) (Emphasis in original).

Finally, the County, quoting Brown v. State, 358 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 1978),

suggests that by entering the writ of mandamus, the trial court impermissibly filled

in a statutory vacuum with relief which is only consistent with how the court

thought the law should read. Not so. Here, the plain and unambiguous language of

section 192.091, speaks for itself. The budget of the property appraiser's office,

as approved by the Department of Revenue, shall be the basis [e]ach such taxing


25/29

21

authority shall be billed [p]ayments shall be made quarterly. See

192.091(1)(a)-(b). Ironically, it is the County reading language into the statute;

language which is simply not there. It seeks the discretion where no such

discretion is provided for and it claims an automatic stay during its appeal to the

Administration Commission, although no such procedural relief is provided for.

And by insisting the statute provides a method for the Property Appraiser, who

does not seek to challenge the DOR FY 2014 Final Budget, to petition the

Administration to undo the Countys illegal withholding of funds in the interim,

the County turns the statutory scheme inside out. The Property Appraisers budget

has been approved; the Property Appraiser can rely on it and seek to compel

compliance with it.

Conclusion

The County Commissions actions denied the Property Appraiser due

process rights by withholding without any legal authority a portion of the

Property Appraisers approved budget funds. While the County Commission has

the right to appeal the Property Appraisers DOR FY-2014 Final Budget to the

Administration Commission, until the Administration Commission exercises its

discretion to hear the appeal and decides to amend the Property Appraisers

budget, the Property Appraisers DOR FY-2014 Final Budget is final and the

County Commission is legally obligated to fund it.


26/29

22

This Court should affirm the writ of mandamus issued by the trial court

compelling the County Commission to fully fund the Property Appraisers DOR

FY-2014 Final Budget.

Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Daniel S. WeingerDANIEL S. WEINGER, ESQ.


27/29

23

Certificate of Service

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was

furnished via electronic service to all counsel on the attached Mailing List on this

14th day of April, 2014.

Certificate of Type Size and Style

The undersigned counsel certifies that the type and style used in this brief is

14 point Times New Roman.

CONRAD & SCHERER, LLPAttorneys for AppelleeP. O. Box 14723Fort Lauderdale, FL 33302Phone: (954) 462-5500

By:/s/ Daniel S. WeingerWILLIAM R. SCHERER

Florida Bar No. [email protected] S. WEINGERFlorida Bar No. [email protected] Service:[email protected]@[email protected]

-and-

BRUCE S. ROGOWFlorida Bar No. 067999TARA A. CAMPIONFlorida Bar No. 90944
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


28/29

24

500 E. Broward Blvd.Suite 1930Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394Telephone: (954) 767-8909Facsimile: (954) 764-1530

[email protected]@rogowlaw.com
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


29/29

SERVICE LIST

Joni Armstrong CoffeyMARK JOURNEYADAM KATZMANANDREW J. MEYERSBroward County AttorneyGovernmental Center, Suite 423115 South Andrews AvenueFort Lauderdale, Florida 33301Telephone: 954-357-7600Facsimile: 954-357-7641

[email protected]@broward.org

[email protected]@[email protected]
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]

Documents

Parrish Answer Brief (Fla. 4th DCA)