The Florida Bar

Florida Bar Journal

Florida Community Associations Versus Airbnb and VRBO in Florida

Real Property, Probate and Trust Law

The internet has spawned yet another market disrupting concept. Airbnb and VRBO, relying in part on “I own it and can use it as I wish,” a traditional real property belief, collide in numerous battlegrounds across the state with another traditional belief, the ability of communities to restrict perceived disruptive uses. Florida law has consistently upheld community covenants and restrictions regulating the level of occupancy and limiting an owner’s ability to transfer a condominium unit. Most often found in a declaration of condominium or covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CCR), leasing restrictions, leasing approval requirements, and, more often than not, restrictions on the frequency and duration of leases and guest occupancy of units reflect a general discord existing between resident owners and nonresident owners and their lessees because of what is perceived as differing interests in the use and maintenance of property. As a result, many communities have attempted to strengthen their ability to control occupancy of condominium units by promulgating regulations to further restrict, if not completely prohibit, an owner’s ability to lease or rent that owner’s parcel within an association-governed community.1 These restrictions have been adopted by either boards of directors exercising their rulemaking authority or by parcel owners amending their CCRs and declarations.

Restrictions on leasing units, whether contained in the original declaration or in subsequent declaration amendments, are reasonable indirect restraints on alienation, which are not violative of the unit owner rights that are subject to the restrictions.2

Unfortunately, associations in nonresort communities are now administratively burdened to undertake resort or hotel-type burdens as a result of the frequency of such reservations and implementation of regulations seeking to protect the community, its residents, and its property. The convergence of an association’s right to regulate unit occupancy and the frequent short-term rentals at the center of the business models of Airbnb, Inc., and Vacation Rentals by Owner (VRBO) squarely presents concerns for community associations seeking to enforce residency and occupancy restrictions. Those who oppose Airbnb and VRBO can utilize zoning laws, restrictive covenants, land use ordinances, and tax laws to target these companies and others that share a similar business model. Notwithstanding these methodologies, F.S. §509.032(7)(b) (2016) provides that a local law, ordinance, or regulation, adopted after June 1, 2011, may not prohibit vacation rentals or regulate the duration or frequency of rental of vacation rentals. This restricts the ability of local governments to regulate short-term rentals. However, Florida’s First District Court of Appeal in Bennett v. Walton County, 174 So. 3d 386 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015), presented a means to potentially and significantly legally impair the Airbnb and VRBO business model.

The Business Models of Airbnb and VRBO
Airbnb collects money by providing a matching service online for property owners and short-term renters.3 Airbnb generally does not own or operate the properties.4 Rather, Airbnb collects a fee on each transaction for acting as an intermediary.5 Airbnb offloads responsibility for cleaning, maintenance, repairs, insurance, and compliance with regulations and laws to the property owners who act as independent contractors.6 What are Airbnb’s responsibilities? It handles advertising, owner-renter communications, booking, and payment processing in exchange for commissions from both the renters and the property owners.7

VRBO operates its business somewhat similarly to Airbnb. VRBO also acts as an intermediary between property owners and short-term renters.8 However, VRBO acts similarly to the classified pages in a newspaper by allowing property owners to advertise on its site for a flat fee, rather than collecting a commission and involving itself in the transaction like Airbnb.9 VRBO also only lists entire homes whereas Airbnb lists anything from entire homes to single rooms.10 That said, Airbnb’s and VRBO’s business models are both essentially built around acting as middlemen between property owners and short-term renters.

The Potential Implication of the Bennett v. Walton County Interpretation of Zoning Laws
The Bennetts rented out beachfront property for weddings and other events approximately 30 times in 2009, 13 times in 2010, and 20 times in 2011 and 2012.11 The property was in a residential preservation area under Walton County’s Land Development Code,12 which meant that nonresidential uses were not allowed.13 Complaints from neighbors caused Walton County to investigate and bring enforcement proceedings against the Bennetts for violating the code, since the weddings and events amounted to prohibited nonresidential uses.14 After initial uncertainty over how many events were enough to constitute a prohibited nonresidential use, Walton County eventually decided that any event held by a renter on the Bennetts’ property would result in a code violation.15 Following this, the Bennetts’ sued, alleging substantive due process violations under the U.S. Constitution and the Florida Constitution.16

The First District Court of Appeal held that the code’s prohibition on nonresidential uses was not unconstitutionally ambiguous on its face. The code conveyed a clear and sufficient standard as applied to the Bennetts, and the county’s enforcement of the code was not arbitrary.17 The court’s focus was on the frequency and intensity of the Bennetts’ rentals.18 On the topic of frequency, the court explained that “[t]he rate and scope of the Lawn’s rental usage — up to 30 weddings per year on the Bennetts’ lot — isn’t typical residential usage as measured by common practice.”19 intensity, the court meant that the events often extended for days, involved drinking, and were raucous enough for neighbors to complain and for the Bennetts’ to hire an off-duty police officer to remain on the site for the events.20 In fact, one neighbor complained of guests at the events urinating under his building, pulling the breakers on his air conditioning unit, and even giving him “one finger salutes.”21

This case materially affects companies, such as Airbnb and VRBO, that rely on residential property owners frequently renting their property to short-term renters. The first issue presented is the court’s focus on frequency. Property owners who use Airbnb often rent out their properties frequently for short periods of time. Additionally, the court explained that the Bennetts essentially introduced a wedding event business into their residential preservation area-zoned neighborhood, attracting renters who might otherwise rent churches, meeting halls, parks, country clubs, or other venues to stage their events.22 Airbnb and VRBO perform a similar function by depending on short-term room or property rentals.

However, the court focused on facts that are distinguishable from Airbnb’s and VRBO’s business models. The court discussed the intensity of the events, which sometimes affected the quietude of the development. Airbnb and VRBO act as intermediaries between renters and property owners, but their businesses do not book weddings or other events. Likewise, the court focused on the fact that people were renting the property for events, rather than simply for residential purposes. Short-term renters from Airbnb and VRBO generally use properties in a manner that is more consistent with what a court would consider residential purposes. Thus, Bennett is arguably distinguishable from the challenges that Airbnb and VRBO would face.

In another zoning case, the First Judicial Circuit Court of Florida struck down a directive of the Escambia County Board of County Commissioners that sought to bar property owners in residential neighborhoods from offering their homes for short-term rental.23 The trial judge found that F.S. §509.032(7)(b) preempted the county’s land development code.24 This trial court decision parallels Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi’s explanation that “zoning may not be used to prohibit vacation rentals in a particular area where residential use is otherwise allowed.”25

Ultimately, there is a risk that courts will follow the reasoning of the First District Court of Appeal in Bennett and apply a frequency-based test to determine whether a use qualifies as residential. If that occurs, a frequency-based test will pose a significant issue for Airbnb, VRBO, and other similar businesses. However, a frequency-based test could result in the impairment of rental property owners who do not use Airbnb or VRBO and affect the short-term rental market as a whole, which would have major economic repercussions. That said, courts could also choose to follow the decision of the First Judicial Circuit Court and not allow counties to use zoning laws to circumvent limitations imposed by state statutory law.

The Applicability of Restrictive Covenants to Airbnb and VRBO
In addition to zoning laws, Airbnb and VRBO must be mindful of restrictive covenants and community association regulations prohibiting nonresidential use or otherwise regulating the duration and frequency of rentals. Florida courts have, in few instances, ruled on the topic of restrictive covenants. These opinions are instructive on how a trial court may analyze a restrictive covenant prohibiting nonresidential use.

In Moss v. Inverness Highlands S. & W. Civic Ass’n, Inc., 521 So. 2d 359 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988), the lots in the subdivision were burdened by a restrictive covenant.26 The court held that the property owner opening her home to “these elderly folks” who pay room and board did not violate that restrictive covenant.27 The court reasoned that the act of charging elderly people for using the lot for “purely residential purposes” did not make the use nonresidential in nature.28 Notably, in a manner that may have been a precursor to Bennett, and demonstrating line drawing to protect the residential nature of a community, the Moss opinion continued, albeit in dicta, that if there was a nonresidential use in conjunction with residential occupancy, “then we would agree that the restriction would be violated.”29

In a second opinion dealing with different restrictive covenants, Robins v. Walter, 670 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995), the court held that a bed and breakfast inn is a business or commercial use of property, which violated the restrictive covenants.30 The property owner built the house with five separate bedrooms each with a separate entrance to the outside, and the home was marketed as a bed and breakfast.31 Robins distinguished Moss on the grounds that in Moss the elderly patrons were intended to be permanent residents.32 The Robins court focused on the short-term nature of the rentals in its reasoning.33

Robins implicitly encourages a frequency-based test. The use of the property in Robins was similar to the use of many properties listed on Airbnb. An argument may be made that Robins is binding on courts interpreting the treatment of restrictive covenants prohibiting nonresidential uses. If that is true, when combined with the Bennett case in communities with frequency-based restrictions, properties rented through Airbnb and VRBO may be subject to a frequency-based test regarding their restrictive covenants.

Opinions from other jurisdictions are also instructive on how to construe this issue. In Barrickman v. Wells, 2013-CA-001578-MR, 2015 WL 2357179 (Ky. Ct. App. 2015), a Kentucky court presided over a case dealing with the issue of whether property owners violated a restrictive covenant of a community association prohibiting “commercial use” when the owners rented their house frequently through VRBO.34 The Barrickman court affirmed the trial court’s finding that no restriction expressly prevented the property owner from renting his home to a third party.35 The restriction did not define “commercial use,” which appeared ambiguous under Kentucky law, thus, the court inquired into the drafter’s intent and concluded that if the association intended to prohibit leasing then the association could have done so, but it did not do so.36 A dissenting judge, however, argued that the frequency and short duration of the stays made the use of the home analogous to a hotel or motel; thus, it was commercial use.37

VRBO’s model was directly at issue in a Colorado case, Houston v. Wilson Mesa Ranch Homeowners Ass’n, Inc., 360 P.3d 255 (Colo. App. 2015), which held that the property owners did not violate the community association’s restrictive covenant’s requirements that the lots be used as “residential tracts” and shall not “ever be occupied or used for any commercial or business purpose nor for any noxious activity and nothing shall be done…on any of said lands which is a nuisance or might become a nuisance to the…owners of any of said lands.”38 In response to the owners’ advertising on VRBO and rentals, the association’s board of directors adopted a 30-day minimum rental period enforced with $500 fines.39

Acknowledging the novel issue for the state, the court carefully identified the polestars for decisionmaking, the purpose or intent of the restriction, and if not clear on its face, “ambiguity or doubt” results in “unrestricted use of property.”40 The court explained that temporary or short-term use of a residence does not preclude that use from being residential because “their homes, as distinguished from one which is used for commercial or business purposes[,]”41 are still occupied, even if rental income is realized.42 Similarly, the receipt of income does not transform residential use to “commercial.”43 The court focused on the fact that the renters continued to use the property for living purposes.44 Thus, the court explicitly concluded that short-term vacation rentals were not prohibited by the restrictive covenant at issue.45

The Houston court rejected the application of a frequency-based test by holding the board adopted 30-day restriction to be not enforceable. The board’s asserted justification of clarifying the covenants was found insufficient as the covenants, as held in the court’s analysis, did not prohibit short-term rentals.46

One interpretation that was common to both Houston and Barrickman was the court’s narrow construction of restrictive covenants. These courts’ predicates are similar to Florida’s jurisprudence narrowly construing real property covenants.47 Thus, if Florida community associations similarly seek to construe restrictive leasing covenants, the associations must be specific in their prohibition of short-term rentals.

Florida courts appear to be leaning in the opposite direction, despite not having addressed VRBO or Airbnb, directly. Robins and Bennett both stand for the potential of a frequency-based test in Florida to evaluate whether a use is nonresidential or residential in type; however, Moss undermines the argument for a frequency-based test. In fact, the reasoning and holding in Moss are similar to the reasoning and holding in Houston, the Colorado case. Both courts determined that receipt of income alone does not transform residential use to commercial use. The courts preferred a test focused on the nature of the use, instead of its frequency.

If a Florida court were to apply a frequency-based test, restrictions prohibiting nonresidential use would prove to be an effective tool to regulate or prohibit Airbnb and VRBO. There is a risk, however, that rental property owners who do not use Airbnb or other similar businesses could become collateral damage under that interpretation. Community associations could utilize a frequency-based test to prevent temporary rentals in their neighborhoods, in addition to using nuisance-type restrictive covenants to address and prevent the types of activities deemed offensive, such as those in Bennett.48 That all said, the Florida Legislature has addressed frequency-based restrictions to some degree with F.S. §718.110(13) (2016).49 The legislature mandated that amendments regulating the duration or frequency of rentals only apply to unit owners who approve the amendment or purchase their units after the effective date of that amendment.50 Thus, the Florida Legislature has enacted laws protecting property owners from frequency-based restrictions, so restraint should be exercised by courts when faced with frequency-based or duration-based tests for determining residential use.

Local Government Ordinances Targeting Airbnb, VRBO, and Similar Businesses
Local governments and state legislatures throughout America are currently taking steps to regulate Airbnb, VRBO, and other businesses that utilize the same business model.51 These regulations generally take the form of restrictions on short-term rentals and the imposition of taxes. Florida has imposed some of these regulations on the state and local level. However, Florida also has a statute limiting the ability of local governments to regulate short-term rentals in certain areas.

F.S. §509.032(7)(b) restricts local laws, ordinances, and regulations from prohibiting vacation rentals or regulating the duration or frequency of vacation rentals. However, that statute does not apply to any local laws, ordinances, or regulations adopted on or before June 1, 2011.52 This statute formerly prohibited local laws, ordinances, and regulations from restricting the use of vacation rentals, prohibiting vacation rentals, or regulating vacation rentals based solely on their classification, use, or occupancy, prior to being amended in 2014.53 Essentially, the statute previously barred local governments from regulating short-term rentals, except for regulations adopted on or before June 1, 2011. The legislature amended the statute in 2014, and it now only bars local governments from prohibiting short-term rentals entirely or regulating the frequency or duration of short-term rentals. Under the current statute, for example, a local government cannot create an ordinance that prohibits property owners from renting their property more than 10 times in a year or mandates that rentals must be for at least seven days.

Despite the statute, local governments in Florida have found methods to regulate short-term rentals. For example, the City of Miami Beach code bans short-term rentals in all single-family homes and only allows short-term rentals in certain zoning districts.54 Ft. Lauderdale recently enacted an ordinance requiring all vacation rentals, except timeshares, to officially register their property with the city and pass a maintenance and life safety inspection.55 Flagler County also enacted comprehensive short-term rental regulations ranging from the maximum number of occupants to the minimum number of parking spaces and garbage containers needed per guest.56 Additionally, other local governments passed ordinances similar to the ones discussed above, such as Anna Maria.57

Property owners have challenged some of these ordinances. For example, two property owners challenged the aforementioned Flagler County ordinance on the grounds that state law preempted the ordinance, the ordinance violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Florida Constitution, and the ordinance violated the privacy rights of the property owners.58 The trial judge upheld the ordinance in its entirety but found that the government could not apply the ordinance to contracts entered into before its adoption.59 In 30 Cinnamon Beach Way, LLC v. Flagler County, No. 5D15–2296, 2016 WL 194800 (Fla. 5th DCA Jan. 12, 2016), the Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed, without opinion, the holding of the trial court.60

Additionally, the imposition of taxes by state and local governments is a significant issue for Airbnb, VRBO, and similar businesses. Under F.S. §212.03(1)(a) (West 2016), Florida collects a six percent “transient rental tax” for rentals of less than six months, and under F.S. §§125.0104(3)(a)1-2, Florida counties may also collect a “tourist development tax” for rentals of less than six months. When combined, these taxes can exceed 11 percent of the listed price.61 Airbnb agreed to pay these occupancy taxes commencing in December 1, 2015.62 Prior to that time, the counties struggled to have Airbnb comply with the taxes, and Palm Beach County even filed suit to force Airbnb and other similar companies to pay the “tourist development tax” that the county claimed they owed.63 Other businesses with models similar to Airbnb must keep these tax implications in mind as they move forward with business operations in Florida. These businesses face the same sort of tax implications that traditional hotel businesses do, which is consistent with the service they are providing.

Looking toward the future, there is still the possibility of major change on the horizon. Members of the legislature have put forward bills, in both 2015 and 2016, seeking to amend F.S. §509.032(7)(b) to allow local governments to regulate the duration and frequency of vacation rentals.64 This will continue to be a hotly contested issue into the future. If the legislature amends the statute to allow local governments to regulate the duration and frequency of vacation rentals, the business models of Airbnb, VRBO, and similar businesses could suffer severe setbacks in Florida.

The Bennett decision poses significant questions as to how courts will proceed in interpreting what constitutes residential use. In the realm of zoning laws, ordinances, and restrictive covenants, courts should interpret residential use consistently with the limitations placed on local governments and community associations under F.S. §509.032(7)(b) and F.S. §718.110(13). Based on these statutes, courts should be reluctant to adopt a frequency-based test for determining whether a use is residential in nature. Colorado’s approach in Houston provides a useful guide for how Florida courts can interpret residential use consistently with the free use of property. Adopting a frequency-based test for residential use could lead to unintended consequences and have a far-reaching economic impact on short-term rentals in Florida. A policy shift of that magnitude is likely best left to the legislature, especially when there exists statutes reflecting the legislature’s wish to limit local governments’ and community associations’ regulation of short-term rentals.

1 See, e.g., Beachwood Villas Condominium v. Poor, 448 So. 2d 1143 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Seagate Condominium Ass’n, Inc. v. Duffy, 330 So. 2d 484 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); Kroop v. Caravelle Condominium, Inc., 323 So. 2d 307 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975).

2 See Woodside Village Condominium Ass’n, Inc., 806 So. 2d 452 (Fla. 2002).

3 Jeffrey Pfeffer, How to Make a Fortune Without ‘Doing’ Anything: The Uber, Airbnb Store, Fortune(Nov. 24, 2014), available at

4 Id.

5 Id.

6 Id.

7 Carolyn Said, ‘Airbnb Law’ Would Make Business Harder for Airbnb’s Chief Rival, SF Gate (Oct. 10, 2014), available at

8 Id.

9 Id.

10 Id.

11 Bennett, 174 So. 3d at 389.

12 See id. at 387.

13 Id. at 388.

14 Id. at 392-93 (Makar, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part).

15 Id. at 393.

16 Id. at 394.

17 Id. at 388-90 (majority opinion).

18 Id. at 389.

19 Id.

20 Id.

21 Id. at 392 (Makar, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part).

22 Id. at 389 (majority opinion).

23 Order on Appeal, Hostetter v. Escambia Cty., Fla., 2015-CA-1383 (J) at 1-4 (Fla. 1st Cir. Dec. 16, 2015); Will Isern, Escambia Loses Short Term Rentals Case, Pensacola News J. (Dec. 21, 2015), available at

24 Order on Appeal, Hostetter v. Escambia Cty., Fla., 2015-CA-1383 (J) at 3 (1st Cir. Dec. 16, 2015).

25 Pam Bondi, Florida Office of the Attorney General, Advisory Legal Opinion, AGO 2014-09 (Nov. 13, 2014), available at

26 The restrictive covenant stated: “All lots shall be used for residential purposes only.” Moss, 521 So. 2d at 359.

27 Id.

28 Id.

29 Id.

30 Robins, 670 So. 2d at 974. (The relevant restrictive covenants stated: “2. No structure shall be erected, altered, placed, or permitted to remain on any residential building lot other than one detached single family dwelling unit with attached or detached garage, with quarters for domestics attached to the garage. 3. No structure of any said lot shall be used for business or commercial purposes provided, however, the renting of the premises in whole or in part shall not be construed to be a business or commercial operation….6. No business shall be permitted or maintained on any lot or lots except lot 16-A, 17, 18, 19 and 20 in Block B, lots 1, 2, 14 and 15 in Block D, and lots 1, 2 and 3 in Block F.” Id. at 973 (emphasis added)).

31 Id. at 973.

32 See id. at 975. (The court in Robins also stated: “The fifth district compares the facility to the leasing or renting of a residence and specifically notes that the facility in that case did not provide overnight accommodations.”). Id. Robins actually misstated the facts in Moss because the facility in Moss did provide overnight accommodations to the elderly patrons who resided there. See Moss v. Inverness Highlands S. & W. Civic Ass’n, Inc., 521 So. 2d 359, 359 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988).

33 Robins, 670 So. 2d at 975.

34 See Barrickman, 2015 WL 2357179 at *1 (“Restriction #6 in the Green Creek Estates’ Declaration of Protective Covenants and Restrictions prohibits ‘commercial use’ of property.”).

35 Id. at *2.

36 Id.

37 See id. at *6 (Vanmeter, J., dissenting). See also Hyatt v. Court, 2008-CA-001474-MR, 2009 WL 2633659 at *4 (Ky. Ct. App. 2009) (explaining that “it is not what the tenants do to occupy their time while on the property that is forbidden, it is the fact that the property is being held out for remuneration in much the same manner as a hotel or motel that is restricted” in a case that dealt with a restrictive covenant barring commercial use); Vonderhaar v. Lakeside Place Homeowners Ass’n, Inc., 2012-CA-002193-MR, 2014 WL 3887913 at *4 (Ky. Ct. App. 2014) (using the exact language from Hyatt while analyzing whether the property owner violated the community association’s restrictive covenant prohibiting business or commercial use).

38 Houston, 360 P.3d at 256.

39 Id.

40 Id. at 257.

41 Id. at 258.

42 Id. at 259.

43 Id. at 260.

44 Id. at 259.

45 Id. at 260.

46 Id. at 261.

47 See, e.g., Eckerd Corp. v. Corners Grp., Inc., 786 So. 2d 588, 591 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (“[R]estrictive covenants should be narrowly construed in favor of the free transferability of property….”); Robins, 670 So. 2d at 974 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (“[W]e are aware that restrictive covenants should be narrowly construed….”); Brower v. Hubbard, 643 So. 2d 28, 29 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (“[R]estrictive covenants should be narrowly construed in favor of the free transferability of property….”).

48 For a discussion of the offensive activities in Bennett, see note 21 and the accompanying discussion.

49 The statute states: “An amendment prohibiting unit owners from renting their units or altering the duration of the rental term or specifying or limiting the number of times unit owners are entitled to rent their units during a specified period applies only to unit owners who consent to the amendment and unit owners who acquire title to their units after the effective date of that amendment.” Id.

50 Id.

51 See, e.g., Austin, Tex., Land Dev. Code §25-2-950 (2016) (discontinuing short-term rentals for properties when the owner does not live on-site by April 1, 2022, at latest); Virginia Beach, Va., Code §35-252 (2016) (assessing a tax on short-term rental property owners and defining “short-term rental property”).

52 Id.

53 Fla. Stat. §509.032(7)(b) (2012).

54 Miami Beach, Fla., Code §142-905(b)(5) (2016) (banning rentals of less than six months and one day in single-family homes); Miami Beach, Fla., Code §142-1111(b) (2016) (allowing for short-term rentals in certain zoning districts if the procedure of the ordinance is followed); Katherine Kallergis, How is Miami Dealing with Airbnb’s Growth?, Real Deal (May 5, 2016), available at

55 Fort Lauderdale, Fla., Code §§15-272–279 (2016); Hortense Leon, Airbnb Spreading in South Florida — with Mixed Response, Real Deal (Feb. 11, 2016), available at

56 Flagler Cty., Fla., Code §3.06.14. (2016); Ending Long Fight, County Approves Short-Term Rental Regulations–With Grandfather Clause, (Feb. 19, 2015),

57 Anna Maria, Fla., Code §§108-21–108-43 (2016); Amaris Castillo, Anna Maria Officials Unanimously Pass Vacation Rental Ordinance, Bradenton Herald (Apr. 10, 2015), available at

58 Verified Compl. For Decl. & Inj. Relief, 30 Cinnamon Beach Way, LLC v. Flagler County, 2015 CA 000167 at 13-35 (7th Cir. Jun. 1, 2015). See also Tony Holt, Vacation Rental Owners File Lawsuit Against Flagler County, Daytona Beach News-Journal (Mar. 6, 2015), available at

59 Order on Pls.’ Mot. For Prelim. Inj., 30 Cinnamon Beach Way, LLC v. Flagler County, 2015 CA 000167 at 21-22 (7th Cir. Jun. 1, 2015); Jonathan Simmons, County’s Vacation Rental Ordinance Passes Legal Challenge, Palm Coast Observer (Jun. 2, 2015), available at

60 30 Cinnamon Beach Way, 2016 WL 194800 at *1.

61 See Mitch Perry, Airbnb to Start Collecting Florida Tourist Taxes Beginning Dec. 1, Florida Politics (Nov. 18, 2015), available at

62 Id.

63 Id. See also Compl., Gannon v. Airbnb, Inc., 2014 CA 000428 at 1-12 (15th Cir. Jan. 13, 2014).

64 Paul S. Figg, The Fight Over Vacation Rentals: Florida’s Continuing Struggle to Adapt to the Sharing Economy, Lexology (Dec. 8, 2015), available at

William P. Sklar is of counsel at Carlton Fields. He is board certified in real estate law, a fellow of the American College of Real Estate Lawyers, an adjunct professor of law on the University of Miami’s Real Estate Development LLM faculty, and director of the Boyer Institute on Condominium and Cluster Development.

Jerry C. Edwards is a third-year law student at the University of Florida Levin College of Law.

This column is submitted on behalf of the Real Property, Probate and Trust Law Section, Deborah Packer Goodall, chair, and Doug Christy and Jeff Goethe, editors.

Real Property, Probate and Trust Law