With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". So.2d 925 (Fla.2005). The Property Appraiser determined that the home was substantially completed on January 1, 2001, thus he included the value of the improvement in the 2001 assessment valuation. The Kleins appealed the assessment value to the Value Adjustment Board. Having no success before the Board the Kleins filed the instant action against the Property Appraiser. Various issues were raised by the pleadings, but the case has now boiled down to the sole issue of whether the improvement was substantially completed on January 1, 2001. We have examined the various documents relating to the summary judgment, and even though it was a close call by the trial court there are disputed facts that compel a reversal of the summary judgment. McQueen v. Roye, 785 So.2d 512 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)(<HOLDING>). Counsel for the Property Appraiser suggests

A: holding that summary judgment is appropriate when no issue of material fact exists and the court is reviewing administrative record for sufficiency of evidence
B: holding that the existence of genuine issues of material facts render not appealable a pretrial denial of summary judgment on the issue of qualified immunity
C: holding trial court is required to deny summary judgment where even the slightest doubt exists regarding the existence of material issues
D: holding that the trial court erred by granting summary judgment to the contractor where genuine issues of material fact existed regarding a duty to an injured construction worker
C.