MIAMI DADE COUNTY
v.
26 NE 54TH STREET LLC
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.
Miami-Dade County challenged a hearing officer's decision granting a water bill vandalism adjustment to a landlord whose tenant deliberately wasted water by tying faucets open during an eviction dispute. The court held that because there was no physical damage to the plumbing requiring repair, the vandalism adjustment was improper under the Water and Sewer Department's rules.
The court held that the hearing officer improperly granted the vandalism adjustment because there was no actual vandalism as defined by the department's rules. A vandalism adjustment requires evidence of damage to property (such as plumbing) that necessitates repair. Economic loss alone, without physical damage, is insufficient to qualify for a vandalism adjustment.
[1] A customer seeking a vandalism adjustment for a water bill must demonstrate damage to property that caused the higher-than-normal bill.
[2] Water and sewer department rules and regulations requiring reporting of vandalism, written notice of the nature of the vandalism, date of occurrence, date of repair, and…
Previewing 2 of 6 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“Customer shall report such acts immediately to the Department and request termination of service until the Customer's plumbing can be repaired. The Customer shall then submit to the Department, in writing, the nature of the vandalism, the date of occurrence, the date of repair, and police case number.”
Establishes the regulatory requirements for a vandalism adjustment, requiring evidence of plumbing damage necessitating repair.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA landlord (Respondent) had a dispute with a tenant and initiated eviction proceedings. Upon retaking possession after winning the eviction, the landl…
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.
On a Petition for Writ of Certiorari from final administration action by the Miami Dade County Water and Sewer Board.
Valerie Toth, Esq., Assistant County Attorney, for Petitioner Miami-Dade County.
Respondent 26 NE 54TH Street, LLC did not appear in this action.
Before TRAWICK, DE LA O, and ARECES, R., JJ.
ARECES, R., J.
Petitioner, Miami-Dade County ("Petitioner"), claims the hearing officer departed from the essential requirements of the law and rendered a decision that was wholly unsupported by competent substantial [*1] evidence.1 Specifically, Petitioner contends the Hearing Officer afforded Respondent a vandalism adjustment to his water bill to which Respondent was not entitled. This Court agrees.
In Miami-Dade County, a customer seeking an adjustment for vandalism must necessarily show there has been some damage to property that has caused the higher-than-normal water bill. See Water and Sewer Department Rules and Regulations at 2.10(1)(d), available online at https://documents.miamidade.gov/ao-io/IO/IO-10-08.pdf. Specifically, Rule 2.10(d) provides, in pertinent part, Customer shall report such acts immediately to the Department and request termination of service until the Customer's plumbing can be repaired. The Customer shall then submit to the Department, in writing, the nature of the vandalism, the date of occurrence, the date of repair, and police case number. Id. (emphasis added). A plain and ordinary reading of Rule 2.10(d) limits the vandalism adjustment to those customers who have, as a result of a [*2] vandal's actions, suffered some damage to their plumbing that requires repair. See State Farm of Fla. Ins. Co. v. Phillips, 134 So. 3d 505, 507 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) (when the language of a statute is unambiguous, the "reviewing court should give effect to the statute's express terms, and its reasonable or obvious implication") (citation omitted).
In this case, the facts are largely, if not entirely, undisputed. Respondent, a landlord, had a dispute with its tenant. Respondent initiated eviction proceedings. Respondent ultimately prevailed in those eviction proceedings and retook possession of the premises. Upon entering the premises, Respondent discovered that the tenant had barricaded the bathroom door and tied the knobs of the faucet open so that the water would flow unimpeded. As a result of the tenant's actions, Respondent's water bill was considerably higher than normal. Notably, there was no damage to the plumbing or water meter, or anything else that required "repair."
Respondent sought an adjustment from the Water and Sewer Department alleging his tenant's actions constituted vandalism. Respondent's request for a vandalism adjustment was denied, because there was "[n]o evidence of damage/repairs done to the water piping," [*3] "[n]o notarized affidavit provided/received," "no photos provided/received," and "[n]o police report provided/received." Appendix at 0026. Respondent requested an administrative hearing.
At the administrative hearing, Respondent conceded that his request for a vandalism adjustment "didn't meet the requirements," but argued that his request did "meet the spirit of the law regarding vandalism." Appendix at 0088-0089. Specifically, Respondent argued, "Vandalism...is not just a physical act. It can be [sic], the damages can be economic, not just physical." Id.
Importantly, the Hearing Officer did not find there was any actual vandalism. Instead, the Hearing Officer found that due to the nature of the eviction proceedings, it was impossible for Respondent to enter the premises to turn off the faucets. Specifically, the Hearing Officer held, I have an understanding that there is a difference in physical violence, physical graffiti, physical vandalism and economic [sic]. So...the property owner, in this instance, when you have a tenant who is in place that you're trying to evict, is a [sic] rock in the hard place. Now, unfortunately for the landlord, he doesn't need a plumber, he doesn't need repair. He needs to get in, and he can't get in. And at the [*4] same time, the police are not going to force in because it's a civil matter....
But it's a whole other layer that's not being recognized in this particular scenario, especially when you're asking for things that cannot be produced. They cannot get the police report because the police won't issue a report.
It's, it's, it's a difficult situation. So I have to say that I think this, the Department is relying on these sets of requirements is nice. These rules, these regulations, but there's also interpretations. And I think in this instance there is a question as to whether or not their interpretation needs to be held, upheld.
And so, therefore, at this time I am not finding in favor of the Department based on the preponderance of facts and law, because there was no, there is an impossibility.... [T]he customer cannot resolve the issue because of something else that's an impediment. And that impediment prevents me from finding for the Department in this instance.
[W]hat I'm saying is that we had an impossibility. That was, that's the whole problem. You have one set of regulations, rules and regulations that you post. That's nice. But then we have [*5] a situation where we have something altogether different happening. It's not a criminal matter to be on an eviction, and so therefore the police won't go in and do a report. So you don't have a police report and then you don't have activity as to repair because there was no, there was no damage done that was going to require a plumber even when they got into the premises. They could not get into the premise [sic] to fix it. It's that simple.
Id at 0092:3-0096:3 (emphasis added).
In short, the Hearing Officer found Respondent could not satisfy the requirements for a vandalism adjustment, because there was, in fact, no vandalism. The Hearing Officer, nevertheless, ruled in Respondent's favor because the circumstances surrounding the eviction of its tenant made it impossible for Respondent to enter the premises and turn off the faucets. In so ruling, the Hearing Officer created her own criteria for adjustment divorced from the specific requirements set forth in the Water and Sewer Department's Rules and Regulations.
To the extent the Hearing Officer interpreted "vandalism" to include instances where there was no physical damage or defacement, said interpretation would be (1) inconsistent with the plain and ordinary meaning of the term "vandalism;" and, (2) at a bare minimum, inconsistent with the type of vandalism Rule 2.10 was enacted to address. [*6] Vandalism is commonly understood to mean that some property has been damaged or defaced. See "Vandalism." Merriam-Webster.com. 2025. https://www.merriam-webster.com (18 Feb. 2025) ("willful or malicious destruction or defacement of public or private property"); "Vandalism." Dictionary.com. 2025. https://www.dictionary.com (18 Feb. 2025) ("deliberately mischievous or malicious destruction or damage of property"); "Vandalism." Dictionary.Cambridge.Org. 2025. https://www.dictionary.cambridge.org (18 Feb. 2025) ("the crime of intentionally damaging property belonging to other people"); "Vandalism." OxfordEnglishDictionary.com. 2025. https://www.oed.com (18 Feb. 2025) ("The conduct or spirit characteristic of, or attributed to, the Vandals in respect of culture; ruthless destruction or spoiling of anything beautiful").
The modern, common understanding of the term "vandalism" is consistent with its original meaning. The Vandals were "a Germanic people who maintained a kingdom in North Africa from 429 to 534 CE" and their "name has remained a synonym for willful desecration or destruction." See "Vandal." Encyclopedia Britannica Online. 2025. https://www.britannica.com (18 Feb. 2025). The commonly understood [*7] meaning of "vandalism" is also consistent with its use in popular culture. See Bob Dylan, Subterranean Homesick Blues (Columbia Records 1965) ("The pump don't work, cause the vandals took the handles") ("emphasis added); The American Analog Set, Choir Vandals ("burn down like old cathy candles / marked up with the choir vandals / reading: destroy destroy destroy") (Tiger Style Records 2001); Pulp, Joyriders (Island Records 1994) ("Hey you, you in the Jesus sandals / Wouldn't you like to come / Over and watch some vandals smashing up someone's home?"); The Streets, Hotel Expressionism (Locked On Records 2006) ("Man, I'm not some crank vandal swinging the TV about at random... Throwing the TV out the window mate is nothing clear of weak cliches / It's vandalism and expressionist we keenly dissociate it.").
Respondent suffered an unfortunate economic loss. An economic loss, however, without physical damage to plumbing, is an insufficient basis upon which to claim a vandalism adjustment under the Department's Rules and Regulations. Respondent's remedy for an economic loss under these circumstances is to bring a civil action against the former tenant. [*8] The Hearing Officer's decision in this case failed to comport with the essential requirements of the law. The Hearing Officer applied a vandalism adjustment in a case where there was no vandalism. In so doing, the Hearing Officer rendered a decision unsupported by competent substantial evidence.
Accordingly, the Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Certiorari is GRANTED and the Hearing Officer's decision is QUASHED.