Florida Statutes
Fla. Stat. § 193.011 (2025)
Factors to consider in deriving just valuation.
✓ 2025 Florida Statutes — current through the 2025 Regular Session
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
193.011 Factors to consider in deriving just valuation.—In arriving at just valuation as required under s. 4, Art. VII of the State Constitution, the property appraiser shall take into consideration the following factors:
(1) The present cash value of the property, which is the amount a willing purchaser would pay a willing seller, exclusive of reasonable fees and costs of purchase, in cash or the immediate equivalent thereof in a transaction at arm’s length;
(2) The highest and best use to which the property can be expected to be put in the immediate future and the present use of the property, taking into consideration the legally permissible use of the property, including any applicable judicial limitation, local or state land use regulation, or historic preservation ordinance, and any zoning changes, concurrency requirements, and permits necessary to achieve the highest and best use, and considering any moratorium imposed by executive order, law, ordinance, regulation, resolution, or proclamation adopted by any governmental body or agency or the Governor when the moratorium or judicial limitation prohibits or restricts the development or improvement of property as otherwise authorized by applicable law. The applicable governmental body or agency or the Governor shall notify the property appraiser in writing of any executive order, ordinance, regulation, resolution, or proclamation it adopts imposing any such limitation, regulation, or moratorium;
(3) The location of said property;
(4) The quantity or size of said property;
(5) The cost of said property and the present replacement value of any improvements thereon;
(6) The condition of said property;
(7) The income from said property; and
(8) The net proceeds of the sale of the property, as received by the seller, after deduction of all of the usual and reasonable fees and costs of the sale, including the costs and expenses of financing, and allowance for unconventional or atypical terms of financing arrangements. When the net proceeds of the sale of any property are utilized, directly or indirectly, in the determination of just valuation of realty of the sold parcel or any other parcel under the provisions of this section, the property appraiser, for the purposes of such determination, shall exclude any portion of such net proceeds attributable to payments for household furnishings or other items of personal property.
History.—s. 1, ch. 63-250; s. 1, ch. 67-167; ss. 1, 2, ch. 69-55; s. 13, ch. 69-216; s. 8, ch. 70-243; s. 20, ch. 74-234; s. 1, ch. 77-102; s. 1, ch. 77-363; s. 6, ch. 79-334; s. 1, ch. 88-101; s. 1, ch. 93-132; s. 1, ch. 97-117; s. 1, ch. 2008-197.
Note.—Former s. 193.021.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 127
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1970–2021 · leading case: Florida Dept. of Revenue v. Howard, 916 So. 2d 640 (Fla. 2005).
Florida Dept. of Revenue v. Howard, 916 So. 2d 640 (Fla. 2005). “In arriving at just valuation as required under s. 4, Art. VII of the State Constitution, the property appraiser shall take into consideration the following factors: (1) The present cash value of the property, which is the amount a willing purchaser would pay a willing seller,…”
Mazourek v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 831 So. 2d 85 (Fla. 2002). “§ 193.011, Fla. Stat. (1997). The property appraiser's assessment is presumed correct, but such presumption is lost where the taxpayer demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that the property appraiser "has failed to consider properly" the section 193.”
Straughn v. Tuck, 354 So. 2d 368 (Fla. 1977). “461, Florida Statutes (1973) and was assessed without due regard to the dictates of Section 193.011, Florida Statutes (1973).”
Florida Rock Indus. v. Bystrom, 485 So. 2d 442 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986). “In so doing, the Property Appraiser considered and gave adequate weight to all the factors set forth in Section 193.011, Florida Statutes. Market data used in assessing the property consisted primarily of sales of substantial tracts of vacant land in the vicinity of the subject…”
Florida E. Coast Ry. Co. v. Dept. of Rev., 620 So. 2d 1051 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993). “ration focus upon FEC's contentions: (1) that DOR's unit rule method of railroad assessment results in a "going concern" tax on the railroad which is unauthorized by law; (2) that the trial court imposed an improper burden of proof upon FEC because DOR's valuation failed to…”
Bystrom v. Valencia Ctr., Inc., 432 So. 2d 108 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983). “(1963), the presecessor of the present § 193.011, Fla. Stat.]. Therefore, when the seven statutory guideposts are applied to the classic formula, "the amount a purchaser willing but not obliged to buy, would pay to one willing, but not obliged to sell," the result will include…”
Schultz v. Tm Florida-ohio Realty Ltd. P'ship, 553 So. 2d 1203 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989). “§ 193.011, Fla. Stat. (1985). [2] When explaining what the term "consider" means to him, Schultz's expert stated: Well, when you're considering something, we go through and do an analysis on properties and consider we obviously are going to consider using a market approach,…”
Valencia Ctr., Inc. v. Bystrom, 543 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 1989). “§ 193.011, Fla. Stat. (1987). This Court has found that the just valuation at which property must be assessed under the constitution and section 193.”
Turner v. Tokai Fin. Servs., Inc., 767 So. 2d 494 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). “" In light of this constitutional mandate and its interpretation by the supreme court, we must consider the application and effect of section 193.011, Florida Statutes (1997), which states: 193.”
Bystrom v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc'y of United States, 416 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982). “pproach was the only proper approach in the assessment of the property; and (2) the Taxpayers’ contention that the proper method by which to ultimately assess the property was by utilizing the income approach, the claims were singularly identical with respect to the ultimate…”
Blake v. Xerox Corp., 447 So. 2d 1348 (Fla. 1984). “Xerox filed a complaint against the property appraiser and the Dade County Tax Collector claiming that the county appraiser's method of valuation violated article VII, section 4, Florida Constitution, and section 193.011, Florida Statutes (1977).”
Vero Beach Shores, Inc. v. Nolte, 467 So. 2d 1041 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985). “§ 193.011, Fla. Stat. (1983). Appellant complains that the cost of the property(ies) was not taken into account by the property appraiser; thus, the appraisal is invalid.”
— 193.011(1) — 7 cases
Florida E. Coast Ry. Co. v. Dept. of Rev., 620 So. 2d 1051 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993). “ration focus upon FEC's contentions: (1) that DOR's unit rule method of railroad assessment results in a "going concern" tax on the railroad which is unauthorized by law; (2) that the trial court imposed an improper burden of proof upon FEC because DOR's valuation failed to…”
Turner v. Tokai Fin. Servs., Inc., 767 So. 2d 494 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). “" In light of this constitutional mandate and its interpretation by the supreme court, we must consider the application and effect of section 193.011, Florida Statutes (1997), which states: 193.”
Mazourek v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 831 So. 2d 85 (Fla. 2002). “§ 193.011, Fla. Stat. (1997). The property appraiser's assessment is presumed correct, but such presumption is lost where the taxpayer demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that the property appraiser "has failed to consider properly" the section 193.”
Muckenfuss v. Miller, 421 So. 2d 170 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982).
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Mazourek, 778 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000).
— 193.011(2) — 17 cases
Bystrom v. Valencia Ctr., Inc., 432 So. 2d 108 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983). “(1963), the presecessor of the present § 193.011, Fla. Stat.]. Therefore, when the seven statutory guideposts are applied to the classic formula, "the amount a purchaser willing but not obliged to buy, would pay to one willing, but not obliged to sell," the result will include…”
Atl. Intern. Inv. Corp. v. Turner, 381 So. 2d 719 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980).
Straughn v. Tuck, 354 So. 2d 368 (Fla. 1977). “461, Florida Statutes (1973) and was assessed without due regard to the dictates of Section 193.011, Florida Statutes (1973).”
Florida Rock Indus. v. Bystrom, 485 So. 2d 442 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986). “In so doing, the Property Appraiser considered and gave adequate weight to all the factors set forth in Section 193.011, Florida Statutes. Market data used in assessing the property consisted primarily of sales of substantial tracts of vacant land in the vicinity of the subject…”
Sec. Mgmt. Corp. v. Markham, 516 So. 2d 959 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987).
— 193.011(4) — 2 cases
Walker v. Trump, 549 So. 2d 1098 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989).
Steffen v. Turner (In Re Steffen), 342 B.R. 861 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2006).
— 193.011(5) — 1 case
Scott Morris v. City of Cape Coral, etc., 163 So. 3d 1174 (Fla. 2015).
— 193.011(6) — 1 case
Steffen v. Turner (In Re Steffen), 342 B.R. 861 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2006).
— 193.011(7) — 7 cases
Bystrom v. Whitman, 488 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 1986).
Florida E. Coast Ry. Co. v. Dept. of Rev., 620 So. 2d 1051 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993). “ration focus upon FEC's contentions: (1) that DOR's unit rule method of railroad assessment results in a "going concern" tax on the railroad which is unauthorized by law; (2) that the trial court imposed an improper burden of proof upon FEC because DOR's valuation failed to…”
Bystrom v. Hotelerama Assocs., Ltd., 431 So. 2d 176 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983).
Schultz v. Lurie, 512 So. 2d 1003 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987).
Miramar Marina Corp. v. Pedro J. Garcia, Etc. (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2021).
— 193.011(8) — 11 cases
Turner v. Tokai Fin. Servs., Inc., 767 So. 2d 494 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). “" In light of this constitutional mandate and its interpretation by the supreme court, we must consider the application and effect of section 193.011, Florida Statutes (1997), which states: 193.”
Florida Dept. of Revenue v. Howard, 916 So. 2d 640 (Fla. 2005). “In arriving at just valuation as required under s. 4, Art. VII of the State Constitution, the property appraiser shall take into consideration the following factors: (1) The present cash value of the property, which is the amount a willing purchaser would pay a willing seller,…”
Oyster Pointe Resort Condo. v. Nolte, 524 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 1988).
Bystrom v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc'y of United States, 416 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982). “pproach was the only proper approach in the assessment of the property; and (2) the Taxpayers’ contention that the proper method by which to ultimately assess the property was by utilizing the income approach, the claims were singularly identical with respect to the ultimate…”
S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Broward, 665 So. 2d 272 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.