UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

Case No. ___________________________ 

ERIC SPOFFORD, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

BETA LP / ALPHA TRUST, 

Z LUXURY MANAGEMENT LLC, 

CARMEN ZALDIVAR 

Defendants. 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

 Plaintiff Eric Spofford, by and through his undersigned counsel, for his Complaint against 

Defendants, Beta LP / Alpha Trust, Z Luxury Management LLC, and Carmen Zaldivar 

(collectively, “Defendants”), states as follows: 

Preliminary Statement 

1. Defendants induced Plaintiff to enter an unlawful short-term rental lease agreement 

for him to occupy a supposedly “luxury” property: 440 S. Hibiscus Drive in Miami Beach. 

Defendants pushed Plaintiff to sign the lease, knowing that a three-month lease term violated 

Miami Beach’s prohibition on rentals that are for less than six months and one day. 

2. With that knowledge, Defendants deliberately proposed that, under the lease 

agreement, only Plaintiff be required to “abide by all applicable laws, governmental rules, 

administrative and municipal codes and regulations.” Plaintiff, however, viewed mutual 

compliance with all “applicable laws” as material to his entering the lease. He therefore revised it 

to make the obligation mutual, and Defendant Beta LP / Alpha Trust accepted the revision. 

Case 1:22-cv-23631-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/04/2022 Page 1 of 12
 - 2 - 

3. Under the guise of an illegal short-term rental lease agreement, Defendants insisted 

that Plaintiff pay an exorbitant monthly rent of $100,000.00 per month, and that Plaintiff pay two 

months of that rent and a $40,000.00 security deposit in advance of occupying the property. 

Plaintiff agreed to pay the rent and security deposit, believing both were governed by the terms 

and conditions of a lawful lease agreement. 

4. The illegal nature of this arrangement was exacerbated by the unsuitable conditions 

of the property. Defendants knew that Plaintiff is a successful entrepreneur with worldwide 

business ventures. Defendants knew that Plaintiff intended to use the property as his temporary 

base of operations for his businesses. While Defendants portrayed the property as the perfect fit 

for Plaintiff, it was not: the house had no wireless internet connection, an inoperable stove, and 

spotty air conditioning, among other issues. 

5. Plaintiff raised these concerns to Defendants immediately, but they were never 

successfully remedied. When Plaintiff discovered that Defendants had lied about the legality of 

the rental arrangement, that was the last straw. Plaintiff, through counsel, immediately notified the 

Defendants that he was terminating the lease and demanded that Defendants refund his rent and 

security deposit. To date, Defendants have agreed only to release the security deposit. 

6. This lawsuit followed. 

PARTIES 

7. Plaintiff Eric Spofford is a Windham, New Hampshire resident, successful 

entrepreneur, and owner and Chief Executive Officer of numerous businesses with operations 

throughout the United States. His business has offices in Salem, New Hampshire, and Miami, 

Florida, where Mr. Spofford also owns property. 

Case 1:22-cv-23631-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/04/2022 Page 2 of 12
 - 3 - 

8. Defendant BETA LP / ALPHA Trust owns the property located at 440 S. Hibiscus 

Drive, Miami Beach, Florida (the “Trust Defendant”). According to Miami-Dade County 

property records, the Trust Defendant has a Swiss mailing address, SCHUTZENBERGSTRASSE 

5B, 9053 Tuefen AR, Switzerland. The Trust Defendant has acted through and in coordination 

with Defendants Z Luxury Management and Carmen Zaldivar. Neither have revealed the identity 

of the trustee or the Trust Defendant’s beneficiaries. On information and belief, however, the Trust 

Defendant is owned and controlled by a Switzerland-based doctor, Aldo Scarpatetti.1

9. Defendant Z Luxury Management is a Florida limited liability company with a 

principal business address of 2900 SW 28th Lane, Miami, FL 33133. 

10. Defendant Carmen Zaldivar is a resident of Florida, the owner of Z Luxury 

Management, and serves as an authorized real estate agent for the Trust Defendant. 

JURISDICTION 

11. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction in this case under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 

because the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00 and there is complete diversity of 

citizenship. 

12. The Court may exercise personal jurisdiction over each Defendant because the 

Complaint arises out of Defendants’ “[o]perating, conducting, engaging in, or carrying on a 

business or business venture in” Florida and committing tortious acts within this State. See Fla. 

Stat. § 48.193(1)(a). The Trust Defendant is engaged in the business of residential leasing and 

operates that business through Ms. Zaldivar and her property management, leasing, and sales 

company, Z Luxury Management. The Trust Defendant, acting through and in coordination with 

 

1

 See Swiss Doctor Lists New Hibiscus Island Home for $20m, TheRealDeal.com (last visited 

October 10, 2022), available at https://therealdeal.com/miami/2016/09/26/swiss-doctor-listsnew-hibiscus-island-home-for-20m/. 

Case 1:22-cv-23631-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/04/2022 Page 3 of 12
 - 4 - 

Ms. Zaldivar and Z Luxury Management, has deceptively induced Plaintiff to execute an illegal 

lease agreement for short-term rental of the Trust Defendant’s property. The Court’s exercise of 

personal jurisdiction therefore will comport with Florida’s long-arm statute and the U.S. 

Constitution. 

13. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391, because 

Defendants Z Luxury Management and Ms. Zaldivar reside in this judicial district, a “substantial 

part of the events . . . giving rise to” Mr. Spofford’s claims occurred in this District, and Trust 

Defendant’s property, which is the subject of this action, is located in this District. 

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 

The Illegal Short-Term Rental 

14. The Miami Beach Land Development Regulations prohibit short-term rentals in 

Miami Beach, except in certain parts of the City, which are not applicable here. Miami Beach 

defines short-term rentals as rentals for periods less than six months and one day. See Miami Beach 

Code §§ 142-905, 142-1111.

15. The Trust Defendant owns property subject to Miami Beach’s prohibition on shortterm rentals and has not obtained zoning or other regulatory approval to rent its property for less 

than six months and one day. 

16. On information and belief, since at least 2019, the Trust Defendant, through and in 

coordination with Ms. Zaldivar and her company Z Luxury Management, have rented the Trust 

Defendant’s property for less than six months and one day on numerous occasions. Defendants, 

on information and belief, have done so knowing they were violating the Miami Beach Land 

Development Regulations. 

17. In mid-June 2022, Mr. Spofford, through his representatives, identified the Trust 

Case 1:22-cv-23631-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/04/2022 Page 4 of 12
 - 5 - 

Defendant’s property as a potential rental location. 

18. Mr. Spofford’s representatives informed Ms. Zaldivar that he was a successful 

entrepreneur and would use the rental property as his personal residence and base of business 

operations when he occupied it. Mr. Spofford’s representatives made clear that his intended use 

meant that the property must have a strong and reliable wireless internet connection. Ms. Zaldivar 

and, on information and belief, the Trust Defendant, knew that consistent internet connectivity was 

material to Mr. Spofford leasing the property. 

19. On June 23, 2022, Ms. Zaldivar, acting through her company Z Luxury 

Management and on the Trust Defendant’s behalf and with the Trust Defendant’s authority, 

provided Mr. Spofford a draft of the lease agreement that Defendants proposed would govern Mr. 

Spofford’s occupancy of the property. That draft is attached as Exhibit A (the “Draft Lease”). 

20. That Draft Lease was titled Residential Lease for Apartment or Unit in MultiFamily Rental Housing, Addendum and included information that Ms. Zaldivar had prepopulated 

specific to the parties. The Draft Lease described the Lease Term as for three months, “[b]eginning 

on July 8th end ending on October 8th, 2022.”

21. Paragraph 4 of the Draft Lease originally provided that only the tenant—i.e., Mr. 

Spofford—must “abide by all applicable laws, governmental rules, administrative and municipal 

codes and regulations.” See Ex. A ¶ 4. In hindsight, Defendants attempt to apply this provision 

unilaterally is additional evidence of their knowing violation of the short-term rental laws. 

22. Paragraph 8 of the Draft Lease provided that rent for the three month tenancy period 

was $300,000.00, and that $200,000.00 was due immediately to secure the rental. Paragraph 8 of 

the Draft Lease also required that Mr. Spofford pay a $40,000.00 security deposit seven days 

before the Lease Term commenced. 

Case 1:22-cv-23631-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/04/2022 Page 5 of 12
 - 6 - 

23. Paragraph 8 of the Draft Lease moreover set October 8—three months from the 

lease start date—as when the Lease Term concluded. 

24. Paragraph 9 of the Draft Lease provided that the lease could not be terminated and 

that rent was non-refundable. 

25. After reviewing the Draft Lease, Mr. Spofford’s representative asked Ms. Zaldivar 

if she had “anything more than this agreement that [she] provided regarding the lease” for the 

parties to use to govern their rental relationship. 

26. In response, Ms. Zaldivar represented that Defendants have “rented this house for 

the past 4 years, [and that the Draft Lease] is an agreement [Defendants] issue for short-term.” See 

Exhibit B, Email from Zaldivar, C. (June 28, 2022) (emphasis added). Ms. Zaldivar explained, 

alternatively, that a “longer-term 6 months, and a day or up to a year” lease would be governed 

under a “normal Rental Lease” agreement. See id. (emphasis added). Ms. Zaldivar’s response 

revealed that Defendants understood the difference between a short-term rental and one for longer 

than six months and one day. 

27. To conclude her email, Ms. Zaldivar made—what was then ambiguous, but now is 

telling—reference to a willingness to discuss the Draft Lease if “Mr. Spofford [did not] feel 

comfortable” with it. On information and belief, Ms. Zaldivar was attempting to ascertain, without 

revealing her effort to do so, whether Mr. Spofford or his representatives knew or harbored 

concerns about the illegal short-term rental arrangement. Neither Mr. Spofford nor his 

representatives knew that this short-term rental was illegal. 

28. That is reflected by revisions Mr. Spofford made to the Draft Lease the same day 

he received it. Mr. Spofford’s revisions were reflected in redline and sent back to Defendants for 

Case 1:22-cv-23631-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/04/2022 Page 6 of 12
 - 7 - 

their consideration and acceptance. The revised lease is attached as Exhibit C (the “Revised 

Lease”). 

29. Mr. Spofford made two revisions to the Draft Lease in the Revised Lease that are 

pertinent here. First, it was Mr. Spofford, not Defendants, who proposed the option to renew his 

tenancy period for an additional three months. Defendants never suggested in the lease that Mr. 

Spofford’s occupancy would extend beyond the three-month lease term. Second, Mr. Spofford 

revised Paragraph 4 to require that both he and the Trust Defendant “abide by all applicable laws, 

governmental rules, administrative and municipal codes and regulations”:

30. By requiring the Trust Defendant to also comply with applicable laws, 

governmental rules, administrative and municipal codes and regulations, Mr. Spofford expressed 

his intent that compliance was material to his entering into this lease agreement. 

31. The Trust Defendant accepted all of Mr. Spofford’s proposed revisions and 

returned, through Ms. Zaldivar, a partially executed copy of the lease for Mr. Spofford’s 

countersignature. Mr. Spofford counter-signed it the next day. The fully executed lease agreement 

is attached as Exhibit D (the “Executed Lease”). 

32. Despite Mr. Spofford’s revision to and the Trust Defendant’s acceptance of the 

mutual obligation under Paragraph 4 of the Executed Lease, no Defendant disclosed the illegal 

nature of this short-term rental.

33. On information and belief, all Defendants knew that it was unlawful to rent the 

Trust Defendant’s property for three months. 

Case 1:22-cv-23631-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/04/2022 Page 7 of 12
 - 8 - 

34. On information and belief, Defendants have knowingly flouted the laws restricting 

short-term rentals in Miami Beach and have earned handsome profits from these unlawful rental 

arrangements. Ms. Zaldivar has already admitted that she, through her company, and the Trust 

Defendant, have rented the Trust Defendant’s property for less than six months and one day 

numerous times in the past four years.

The Misrepresented Property Conditions 

35. On July 8, 2022, Mr. Spofford moved into the Trust Defendant’s property. There 

were problems with the property’s condition almost immediately. 

36. Contrary to the numerous online advertisements about the property’s 

“extraordinary” offerings and Ms. Zaldivar’s representations,2

 the property lacked the basic 

accommodations customary for luxury property of this kind and at this rental price point. 

37. The wireless internet connection at the property did not work. The WiFi was so 

unreliable that Mr. Spofford was forced to leave the property to complete almost all of his business 

calls and video conferences. 

38. Mr. Spofford’s son, moreover, was unable to participate in his online education 

program while staying with Mr. Spofford at the property because the WiFi did not work. 

39. Ms. Zaldivar, on several occasions, herself and through internet service provider 

technicians, attempted to rectify the problem, but could not. 

40. Defendants, on information and belief, have now arranged for a complete overhaul 

and replacement of the wireless internet system at the property. 

 

2

 See, e.g., Miami Beach Waterfront Rentals, 440 S. Hibiscus Dr (last visited Aug. 22, 2022), 

available at http://miabeachrentals.com/accommodation/2629/. 

Case 1:22-cv-23631-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/04/2022 Page 8 of 12
 - 9 - 

41. The nonexistent wireless internet connection was not the only problem with the 

property. Despite boasting high-end kitchen appliances, the property’s stove top had just one 

working burner and the dishwasher was broken when Mr. Spofford first arrived.3 The air condition 

system routinely shut down, was inoperable for extended periods of time, and would take hours to 

actually cool the house to a comfortable temperature after restarting.

42. While Mr. Spofford, given his background and upbringing, has experienced far 

worse living conditions, these problems were unacceptable in light of the rental price paid. 

43. Defendants already have admitted that there were inexcusable deficiencies with the 

Trust Defendant’s property. Before Mr. Spofford notified Defendants of his intent to vacate the 

unlawful short-term rental, Defendants offered to reduce the rent for August to compensate for the 

property’s shortcomings. 

44. Mr. Spofford tolerated the property condition issues because he had no other living 

space in Florida. But when he discovered that the rental arrangement was unlawful, Mr. Spofford 

immediately decided to find an alternative living situation and vacated the property on August 18. 

45. Mr. Spofford, through counsel, has since informed Defendants that he would not 

pay additional rent under the unlawful Executed Lease and that he was entitled to a refund of the 

rent and security Defendants took from him. 

46. Defendants have refused to refund Mr. Spofford the rent. Defendants just recently 

returned Mr. Spofford’s security deposit. 

47. As part of their refusal and attempt to intimidate Mr. Spofford, Defendants have 

threatened to pursue counterclaims against Mr. Spofford if he filed a lawsuit. 

 

3

 Cf. supra n.2.

Case 1:22-cv-23631-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/04/2022 Page 9 of 12
 - 10 - 

Miami Beach Code Compliance Department Issued a Notice of Violation 

48. On August 30, 2022, the Miami Beach Code Compliance Department issued a 

Notice of Zoning Violation, number ZV2022-04355, pertaining to 440 S. Hibiscus Drive (the 

“Violation”). 

49. The Miami Beach Code Compliance Department identified the Trust Defendant as 

the “Violator” and provided the following information about the Violation:

50. Put simply, the Miami Beach Code Compliance Department has concluded that the 

Trust Defendant’s short-term leases violate Miami Beach Land Development Regulations.

CAUSES OF ACTION 

COUNT I 

RESCISSION 

(Against All Defendants) 

51. The preceding paragraphs are incorporated and alleged herein by this reference. 

52. This Count II is for Rescission of the Executed Lease. 

53. Because the Executed Lease is for occupancy of an illegal short-term rental, the 

Executed Lease is itself illegal and unenforceable. Moreover, in order to induce Mr. Spofford to 

enter into the Executed Lease, Defendants made a misrepresentation of material fact on which Mr. 

Spofford justifiably relied. 

54. Defendants knew the Executed Lease was illegal and unenforceable, yet still 

required that Mr. Spofford pay rent and a security deposit thereunder. 

Case 1:22-cv-23631-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/04/2022 Page 10 of 12
 - 11 - 

55. Because the Executed Lease is illegal, its terms are unenforceable, and Mr. 

Spofford is without an adequate remedy at law. 

56. Mr. Spofford therefore has notified Defendants of his desire to rescind the Executed 

Lease, and now asks that this Court order such rescission and order that Mr. Spofford be restored 

to his status quo before entering the Executed Lease. 

57. To that end, Mr. Spofford is entitled to a complete refund of the rent paid, 

$200,000.00, under the illegal Executed Lease. 

COUNT II 

CONVERSION 

(Against All Defendants) 

58. The preceding paragraphs are incorporated and alleged herein by this reference. 

59. This Count III is for Conversion and seeks damages for Defendants conversion of 

specifically identifiable funds. 

60. Defendants converted to their own use, on information and belief, the $200,000.00 

in rent that were then the property of Mr. Spofford. 

61. Defendants wrongfully deprived Mr. Spofford of his property, the rent, because 

they deceived him into paying it for an unlawful short-term rental. 

62. Mr. Spofford has a right of possession to the $200,000.00 in rent that Defendants 

have converted and has made a demand for return of both amounts. 

63. Defendants have refused and intend to permanently deprived Mr. Spofford of his 

$200,000.00. 

64. As a direct and proximate result of this conduct, Mr. Spofford is entitled to recover 

actual, consequential, punitive damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, disgorgement or 

restitution, and attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses. 

Case 1:22-cv-23631-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/04/2022 Page 11 of 12
 - 12 - 

COUNT III 

UNJUST ENRICHMENT 

(Against All Defendants) 

65. The preceding paragraphs are incorporated and alleged herein by this reference. 

66. Plaintiff conferred a monetary benefit on Defendants by paying $240,000.00 for 

property that, unbeknownst to him, was rented to him illegally and in conditions materially inferior 

to that which he had bargained for with Defendants. 

67. Defendants requested, had knowledge of, and accepted this monetary benefit. 

68. Defendants have retained $200,000.00 of this benefit conferred. 

69. Defendants’ retention of this monetary benefit is inequitable under the 

circumstance, and Defendants should not be allowed to retain these benefits. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as follows: 

1. Awarding Plaintiff judgment in the amount of $200,000.00. 

2. Awarding Plaintiff his attorneys’ fees and costs, and any such other and further 

relief as the nature of this cause requires. 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

Pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff hereby demands a 

trial by jury as to all issues so triable. 

Dated: November 4, 2022 Respectfully submitted, 

By /s/ Christina Olivos 

 Christina Olivos, Esq. 

 Florida Bar No.: 119580 

 colivos@reedsmith.com 

 REED SMITH LLP 

 200 South Biscayne Blvd., Floor 26 

 Miami, FL 33131 

 Telephone No.: (786) 747-0200 

 Counsel for Plaintiff Eric Spofford

Case 1:22-cv-23631-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/04/2022 Page 12 of 12