Laserfiche WebLink
Rebuttal Testimony: <br />The PA testified that the petitioner call before the hearing with a settlement offer.. <br />The petitioner objected to the PA's statement. about the settlement off. er. (The <br />information regarding the settlement offer was not admitted in to evidence.) No <br />other new evidence was presented by either party that wasn't discussed during the <br />presentation of evidence: <br />Special magistrate's analysis and finding of facts: <br />The comparable sales presented by the PA were applicable for the analysis and <br />valuation of the subject property if adjustments were applied. The petitioner's <br />evidence was 3 of the PA's improved.sales, one of the PA's vacant land. sales. and <br />his testimony. (The stated amount of the settlement offer was not considered in the <br />evidence presented arid, as a result, given no weight in this finding,): <br />The PA's comparable sales were based on the .recorded. sale price. NoCos <br />deduction was made to the comparable sales. The 4 comparables sales (after:: <br />excluding Comparable 5) indicated an:unadjusted range from $742 SF to- $15136 <br />SF with an average of $951 SF. The PA did :not establish a preliminary: value, for <br />the subject property based on the sales presented <br />Florida Statute 194.301(1) incorporates section 193.011(8) which provides for the <br />PA to deduct a cost of sale (COS) in arriving at just value assessments and requires <br />the PA to present evidence showing PA's COS: deductions as reported on Form <br />DR -493 because such deductions were applied -in making just value as: <br />and are professionally accepted appraisal practices: In addition, to not make a COS <br />deduction to the subject property, the PA would not adhere to section <br />194.301(2)(a)3., F.S., which precludes the PA in appraising the petitioned <br />property, from using appraisal-practices:that are arbitrarily different:from the. <br />appraisal practices the PA applied to the comparable properties within the county. <br />:Because a preliminary value was not established: by the PA and a COS deduction <br />was not shown in the analysis of the comparable sales, the presumption of <br />correctness for the assessment was not established..The admitted evidence from the <br />PA did not prove by the preponderance of the evidence tha the property <br />appraiser's just value methodology complied:with the first and eighth criteria of <br />section 193.011, F.S. and professionally accepted appraisal practices. <br />Page 3 <br />2023-142 -79- Page 4 of 6 <br />