Miron 2319, LLC v. City of Hollywood, Florida
This text of Miron 2319, LLC v. City of Hollywood, Florida (Miron 2319, LLC v. City of Hollywood, Florida) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT
MIRON 2319, LLC, Appellant,
v.
CITY OF HOLLYWOOD, FLORIDA, Appellee.
No. 4D2022-3074
[February 28, 2024]
Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Jeffrey R. Levenson, Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE18- 001510.
John M. Bernazzoli, Hollywood, and Melissa A. Giasi of Giasi Law, P.A., Tampa, for appellant.
Kendra S. Breeden, City Attorney’s Office, Hollywood, for appellee.
PER CURIAM.
The City of Hollywood administers water to utility customers like Miron 2139, LLC. The City notified Miron that it owed money for water delivered but not billed due to a defective water meter. Miron sought to enjoin the City from collecting payment and now appeals from summary judgment denying its request. We affirm with one exception.
The 2014 amendment to section 51.075(B) of the Hollywood Code of Ordinances states:
In case the meter has been found to be defective or has ceased to register, the amount of usage to be billed for the period the meter was not functioning properly shall be determined by taking the average monthly usage for the previous 12 months. The City can then bill for past unbilled usage for a period up to 60 months.
As we explained in Hollywood Park Apartments South, LLC v. City of Hollywood, 361 So. 3d 356, 362 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023), “the previous 12 months necessarily refers to the period immediately preceding the unbilled usage period for which the city sought additional payment due to the meter malfunction.”
In this case, the meter failed in June 2011. For purposes of calculating the average monthly usage, the previous twelve months is June 2010 to May 2011. Here, the circuit court did not calculate the monthly usage during that period. As such, we reverse and remand to allow the circuit court to determine Miron’s average monthly usage for the period from June 2010 to May 2011.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
CONNER, KUNTZ and ARTAU, JJ., concur.
* * *
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Miron 2319, LLC v. City of Hollywood, Florida, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miron-2319-llc-v-city-of-hollywood-florida-fladistctapp-2024.