In reaching its decision, the court explained: The Legislature has made clear that the property appraiser’s failure to comply with the notice requirements in section 196.193(5) has consequences: “If a property appraiser fails to provide a notice that complies with this subsection, any denial of an exemption or an attempted denial of an exemption is invalid.” § 196.193(5)(b), Fla. Stat. This statutory provision would be meaningless if, as Appellees argue, Genesis was barred from challenging the denial of its exemption for 2013 when it was not provided notice of the denial simply because its property was listed on the 2013 tax rolls and Genesis did not file suit within 60 days after the tax rolls were certified. Id. at 1082. See also Chihocky v. Crapo, 632 So.2d 230 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (<HOLDING>). We agree with the First District’s decision
holding that the property appraiser was estopped from asserting the statute of limitations where the failure to bring the action within the limitations period was the direct result of the property appraisers failure to timely perform a related duty owed to plaintiff holding that a statutory time period is not mandatory unless it both expressly requires an agency or public official to act within a particular time period and specifies a consequence for failure to comply with the provisions holding that because the plaintiffs did not strictly comply with the statutory provisions for sending ante litem notice the trial court had no subj ect matter jurisdiction over the suit punctuation omitted holding that failure of the property appraiser to strictly comply with statutory notice provisions tolls the running of the sixtyday period within which to bring an action contesting a tax assessment holding that the institution of plaintiffs suit tolls or suspends the running of the statute of limitations governing a compulsory counterclaim