March 13, 2007 Update

The cases involving over 3,300 residential leaseholders on Pensacola Beach remain active in the Escambia County Circuit Court. The initial complaint, Case Number 2004-CA-002290, is assigned to Judge Michael Jones. In each of the past three years, a complaint has been filed against Chris Jones, Escambia County Property Appraiser and Janet Holley, Escambia County Tax Collector on behalf of residential leaseholders contesting that their leasehold interest cannot be taxed as real property. Florida law requires filing a new case each year, to avoid having to pay the assessed taxes. We are represented by the law firm of Shell, Fleming, Davis & Menge.

Two hearings have been scheduled before Judge Michael Jones concerning the 2004 case. M.J. Menge filed a Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Final Judgment with the court in October of 2006. This 6 page document can be viewed on the web site under the heading of “Legal Documents Related to Tax Suit”. Our attorneys scheduled a 2 hour hearing on our motion at a time and date convenient to opposing counsel. The hearing is scheduled for May 2, 2008 at 9 am. Chris Jones and Janet Holley are represented by the Tallahassee firm of Messer Caparello & Self. Opposing counsel filed a Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on February 21, 2008, which is also posted to our web site. The basic legal arguments, presented on behalf of Jones and Holley, are contained in this document. In addition, the Defendants’ attorneys attached the rulings from the Santa Rosa County case (Ward v. Brown) and the other Escambia County cases that have dealt with the assessment of ad valorem taxes on governmental leasehold property. We have been advised by our attorneys that none of these cases is binding on Judge Jones in the present litigation. The cases decided by the Circuit Courts are not binding precedents, but our opponents are allowed to point out these cases as “persuasive” decisions. Our position is that the appellate decision in Ward v. Brown is not binding because the facts there are substantially different than those in our case. Indeed, one of the best summations of the law in our favor can be found in the dissenting opinion rendered by Judge Benton in Ward v. Brown. Judge Benton’s dissent can be found on pages 6 to 18 of Attachment A in the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. Also, the appellate decision in the Pensacola Beach commercial case (Alvin’s Stores v. Jones) is not binding on the judge hearing our case because no opinion was written except the single word, “Affirmed”.

No sooner than it appeared we would get our day in court, Thomas Findley of Messer Caparello & Self, filed a motion to put off the May 2 hearing so that he could request additional information. A hearing on Findley’s motion is scheduled for March 24, 2008. This was followed by a Request for Admissions for all of the approximately 3,300 individually named plaintiffs in the 2004 case. In effect, Mr. Findley is going forward with discovery in this case even though he has made no effort related to discovery for two and a half years. There is nothing in the rules of civil procedure that prevents Mr. Findley from requesting additional information from plaintiffs in this case. In fact, if we do not respond to the Request for Admissions within a specific time frame, each of the statements set out in the request will be deemed admitted. There are 17 statements in the Request for Admissions that our attorneys are answering on everyone’s behalf. Parties to this law suit will be contacted in the event that additional information may be needed from individual plaintiffs.

We will continue to use this web site to report any developments in our case, including the outcome of the March 24 hearing and the date that the motions for summary judgment will be argued in the Escambia County Circuit Court.