Court Opinion

ID: 9945732
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-28 15:05:34.836+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:38.975314
License: Public Domain

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.

                                    2