102 NE 50 HOLDINGS LLC
v.
THE CITY OF MIAMI
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
102 NE 50 Holdings, LLC appeals a City of Miami Code Enforcement Board decision finding it violated zoning code by conducting short-term rentals. The appellate court reversed, finding the Board's decision was unsupported by competent and substantial evidence.
The Board's findings were not supported by competent and substantial evidence. The mere listing of a property on an internet website as available for rent is insufficient basis to find that the property was actually rented on a short-term basis. The Final Administrative Order is reversed.
[1] A final administrative order must be supported by competent and substantial evidence.
[2] A property being listed on an internet website as available for rent is insufficient evidence to prove actual short-term rentals.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“When this Court reviews a final administrative order, it must determine (1) whether procedural due process was afforded, (2) whether the essential requirements of the law were observed, and (3) whether the administrative findings were supported by competent substantial evidence.”
Establishes the three-part standard for reviewing final administrative orders
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant owned real property in Miami. The property was listed on an internet website as available for rent. Appellant resided in the property. The B…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Appellant, 102 NE 50 Holdings, LLC ("Appellant"), appeals from a Final Administrative Order entered by the City of Miami Code [*2] Enforcement Board ("Appellee" or "the Board"), which found that Appellant violated the zoning code by engaging in short-term rentals of his real property. Appellant contends the Board erred because it rendered a decision that was unsupported by competent and substantial evidence. This Court agrees.
When this Court reviews a final administrative order, it must determine (1) whether procedural due process was afforded, (2) whether the essential requirements of the law were observed, and (3) whether the administrative findings were supported by competent substantial evidence. Haines City Cmty. Dev. v. Heggs, 658 So. 2d 523, 530 (Fla. 1995).
In this case, there was no evidence that Appellant had engaged in the short-term rental of his property. Appellee's witness had never seen the property rented out to anyone-short term, or otherwise. Additionally, there was evidence that Appellant resided in the property. The mere fact that the property may have been listed on an internet website as having been available for rent is an insufficient basis upon [*3] which to find that the property had actually been rented on a shortterm basis.1
TRAWICK AND DE LA O, JJ., CONCUR. N1 Though not binding, this Court finds the following two cases persuasive: Canton v. Hillsborough Cnty., 30 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 603a (Fla. 13th Cir. Ct. Jan. 15, 2022) and Griffin v. City of Fort Pierce, 26 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 356a (Fla. 19th Cir. Ct. Aug. 29, 2017). As in Canton and Griffin, there is no evidence that the property at issue in this case was ever actually rented on a short-term basis or otherwise.