Commission declines or defers joining amicus brief in Byrd‑Harris Act appeal; city attorney to be consulted

The commission considered whether Sunny Isles Beach should join an amicus curiae brief in support of the City of Miami in an appeal concerning interpretation of the Bert Harris Act, a Florida law that can provide damages to property owners when governmental action is alleged to unreasonably interfere with a property owner’s reasonable investment‑backed expectations.

Background: Daniel Maland, an attorney who tried the case for Miami, briefed the commission and said a trial court ruling in Miami’s favor could be overturned on appeal in a way that expands potential municipal liability under the statute. He described the case as a nuanced interpretation of the law; if the appellate court opens the statute to broader claims it could increase exposure and costs for municipalities. Maland said there would be no expense to Sunny Isles to join the amicus brief and the League of Cities of Miami‑Dade County and several cities were participating.

Commissioner concerns and procedural questions: Commissioners said they had not been briefed in advance and that the proposed brief had not yet been written. Several asked for the city attorney to consult with Miami counsel before a decision; one commissioner said counsel should provide a formal recommendation before the commission acts. After discussion, a stand‑alone motion to join the brief did not pass; commissioners agreed city counsel should contact Miami’s counsel, review the proposed brief and return with a recommendation.

Ending: The commission did not join the amicus brief at the meeting. City Attorney was authorized (informally, by direction in discussion) to consult with Miami and report back with a recommendation to the commission at a future meeting.