Court Sides With Homeowners in Miami Beach Dispute Over Short-Term Rentals
The property owner is planning to ask the court for a damage award in the six figures.
July 15, 2020 at 03:19 PM
3 minute read
Florida's Third District Court of Appeal on Wednesday affirmed a lower court ruling in favor of a homeowner and rejected the arguments made by the City of Miami Beach in a dispute over a short-term rental.
The conflict involved Miami Beach shutting down utility service to 3098 Alton Road LLC after the city alleged the property owner had not paid fines exceeding $200,000 for operating an Airbnb rental on its property, according to court documents. The property was effectively shut down because it became inhabitable without those water and sewer services.
The ruling comes amid a larger trend of cities seeking to regulate short-term rentals, such as those facilitated through Airbnb, instead of allowing the State of Florida to control enforcement. Homeowners and state government officials have said cities are not equipped to handle the enforcement of short-term rentals.
Now, the property owner is planning to ask the court for a damage award in the six-figure range for lost income for the period during which the property was uninhabitable. It will also seek attorney fees and compensation for damages to the home while the utilities were shutdown.
On appeal, Miami Beach raised several challenges, including that it had the authority to deny utility service based upon the Code of the City of Miami Beach. the Third DCA opinion stated.
That led Miami Beach to assume that in providing or regulating water utility services, the city could exercise its propriety powers and be governed by the same laws and exercise the same rights as a private corporation in a similar situation.
The opinion noted that Florida law has long recognized that courts may interfere with the power "exercised by a town council in the management of its utilities where it exhibits bad faith, fraud, arbitrary action or abuse of power."
The amended complaint alleged Miami Beach, as of October 2017, had imposed upon homeowners more than $6.5 million in fines in connection to the ordinance it cited in this case.
|Read the Third DCA opinion:
|Miami Beach's counsel Raul J. Aguila did not respond to a request for comment by press time.
The Third DCA opinion found that Miami Beach erred when it raised City Code section 110-37. Miami Beach argued that the property owner had not paid the accrued fines resulting from his alleged violation of short-term rental ordinance prohibiting commercial use of the property.
Miami Beach claimed the fines fell within the meaning of "bill, account or charge," which entitled it to discontinue water service.
The Third DCA disagreed and stated because the construction of City Code section 110-37 is dispositive and favors the property owner, the lower court had properly ruled in the property owner's favor.
Christopher B. Spuches, a partner at Agentis PLLC in Coral Gables, said it was clear that violation of short-term rental ordinances have consequences, but turning off the water was not one of them.
"We're very happy that the homeowner had their utilities restored," Spuches said. "But also that future homeowners don't have to be abused by the City of Miami Beach in this manner anymore."
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllJudge Slaps $16 Million Penalty on Defendants in Wyndham Timeshare Advertising Fraud Case
4 minute readGibson Dunn Recruits S&C Partner to Co-Lead M&A Practice, in 2-Partner Hire
Consumer Class Action Accuses Fabletics of Misleading Customers of 'VIP Membership Program' Value
Trending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Trump's Return to the White House: The Legal Industry Reacts
- 3Election 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
- 4Climate Disputes, International Arbitration, and State Court Limitations for Global Issues
- 5Judicial Face-Off: Navigating the Ethical and Efficient Use of AI in Legal Practice [CLE Pending]
- 6How Much Does the Frequency of Retirement Withdrawals Matter?
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250