31 F.4th 1315
11th Cir.2022Background
- Forsyth County amended its Unified Development Code in 2019–2020 to ban short‑term rentals of residentially zoned properties and to permit continuation of any "lawful but nonconforming use" in a grandfathering clause.
- The amended UDC made violations punishable by fines and jail time; the ban became effective in 2020.
- Plaintiffs (a homeowner who operated short‑term rentals and a homeowners association) sued under § 1983 seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing their pre‑existing short‑term rental use was grandfathered.
- The legal dispute turns on the pre‑amendment definition of “dwelling unit,” which allowed use involving owner occupancy or rental or lease "on a weekly, monthly or longer basis."
- The district court ruled that rentals shorter than a week were not lawful under the prior UDC and therefore not grandfathered; the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the statutory‑interpretation issue de novo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the pre‑amendment UDC permitted rentals shorter than one week (i.e., whether the durational phrase modifies "owner occupancy," "rental," and/or "lease") | Plaintiffs: the text does not limit "rental" to weekly or longer, so short‑term rentals were lawful and thus grandfathered | County: the durational phrase limits rental/lease so <weekly rentals were prohibited pre‑amendment and not grandfathered | Durational phrase applies to "rental" and "lease" but not "owner occupancy;" short‑term (<weekly) rentals were prohibited pre‑amendment and remain prohibited — affirmed |
| Whether the prior UDC was void for vagueness because it did not explicitly ban rentals under a week | Plaintiffs: the ordinance is ambiguous/unclear about the short‑term rental ban and therefore void for vagueness | County: the plain text sets clear boundaries; interpretation resolves any ambiguity | Court: plain text resolves the issue; the ordinance is not void for vagueness |
Key Cases Cited
- Young v. Grand Canyon Univ., Inc., 980 F.3d 814 (11th Cir. 2020) (start statutory‑interpretation analysis with the text)
- Bostock v. Clayton County, 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020) (use ordinary public meaning when construing statutory text)
- Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, 141 S. Ct. 1163 (2021) (canons are useful but not rigid rules of interpretation)
- Lockhart v. United States, 577 U.S. 347 (2016) (rule of the last antecedent explained)
- Paroline v. United States, 572 U.S. 434 (2014) (series‑qualifier canon and natural construction principle)
- Reiter v. Sonotone Corp., 442 U.S. 330 (1979) (presumption to give effect to every word if possible)
- Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104 (1972) (void‑for‑vagueness doctrine)
- United States v. Wayerski, 624 F.3d 1342 (11th Cir. 2010) (first step in vagueness inquiry is the plain text)