Hernando County special magistrate reviews dozens of property appeals; several absent petitioners face recommended denials

Special Magistrate Steven Nash presided over a daylong series of property tax hearings in Hernando County on Dec. 18, 2025, taking evidence on multiple single‑family assessment appeals and announcing recommended denials for several petitioners who did not appear.

The magistrate opened the session by noting that the petitioner for petition 006 (CMEX Construction Materials, key 01134668) "did not appear for the hearing scheduled before 09:00 on this date" and that the property appraiser's office had confirmed values that "will be reflected in the recommended decision," preserving the petitioner's right to pursue court remedies, the record shows. The magistrate made the same announcement for petitions 007 and 008, where representatives did not attend, and later repeated it for a midday petition involving a Walmart distribution center (petition 012, key O1252218).

Why it matters: these hearings are the local administrative step where property owners and their representatives can contest the property appraiser's values before a special magistrate. Recommended denials because a petitioner failed to appear mean the magistrate intends to issue an administrative finding that the petition does not merit relief; the record indicates petitioners retain any separate court remedies.

What happened in the bulk of the docket: most contested items were traditional sales‑comparison presentations. Ryan LLC representatives, primarily Natasha Elliott, presented market‑value packets and comparable‑sale adjustments on behalf of portfolio owners and residential investors. The property appraiser's office (represented at the hearing by staff including Brandon Jimenez and Doug Mack) presented field‑review notes, property record cards and three‑to‑six comparable sales for each subject property. The appraiser repeatedly described methodology: a sales‑comparison approach, field reviews conducted in late September 2025, use of adjustment formulas and weighted‑mean calculations to derive per‑square‑foot values and cost‑of‑sale adjustments.

The magistrate routinely asked clarifying questions about methodology and data: how adjusted square footage relates to heated square footage, whether comps were qualified sales, the use of TaxNet in package generation, and whether any comparables had special conditions (for example, repaired sinkhole properties). In several cases the property appraiser noted numerical errors in the written packet (missing trailing zeros or incorrect "just value" entries) and pointed them out for the record; the magistrate said those corrections would be noted in the file.

Notable procedural outcomes and next steps: for the early absent petitioners (006–008 and 012) the magistrate announced recommended decisions denying relief; for the dozens of other petitions the magistrate closed each hearing after admitting timely packages and testimony and said he would make determinations on the written record. No formal roll‑call votes or motions were recorded in the hearing itself. The magistrate closed the final petition and adjourned the day's hearings.

Selected direct statements from the record include the magistrate's observation that a petitioner "did not appear for the hearing scheduled... did not state good cause, and did not request that the petition be heard, and evidence considered in their absence" (Special Magistrate Steven Nash) and multiple property‑appraiser presentations that "our office conducted a field review of the subject parcel on [date]" (property appraiser staff).

What was not resolved at the hearing: the magistrate did not announce final determinations for most petition files in the room; rather, he said he would issue determinations after considering the admitted packets and testimony. The record also contains occasional transcription anomalies—most notably, some segments include the phrase "Orlando County" even though these proceedings were held in Hernando County; those appear to be errors in the transcript and are not treated as indicating a change of venue.

The magistrate closed the session and indicated final written determinations or recommended decisions would issue according to the record; several petitioners (or their representatives) will receive recommended denials because they did not appear.