302 So.3d 39
La. Ct. App.2020Background
- Owner Perrine Chaumont operated a short-term rental at 1829 Joseph St.; the City issued a one‑year short‑term rental permit (3 bedrooms / 6 guests) that expired July 13, 2018.
- City inspectors captured screenshots showing online listings (VRBO, Booking.com) advertising the property as 4 bedrooms and sleeping 14–16 guests and omitting the permit number.
- The City sent violation notices, then an administrative hearing was held; the hearing officer found Chaumont violated the City Code and Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, fined $500 per violation ($1,000 total) plus $75 costs, and ordered cancellations and removal of listings.
- Chaumont filed a suspensive appeal and sought injunctive relief in Civil District Court; the trial court affirmed the administrative decision. Chaumont appealed to the Fourth Circuit.
- On appeal the owner raised (1) evidentiary/hearsay objections to website screenshots, (2) APA/due‑process challenge to the hearing officer’s lack of written findings, and (3) multiple constitutional challenges (First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, Fourteenth vagueness/due process). Many constitutional claims were not raised below and were treated as waived or abandoned.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of website screenshots/hearsay | Screenshots are hearsay and unreliable; City witness did not personally procure them. | Screenshots are admissions/authorized statements of the owner and, even if hearsay, are competent and admissible in administrative proceedings. | Court: admissible. Administrative hearsay allowed where competent and reliable; no abuse of discretion. |
| APA requirement for written findings (La. R.S. 49:958) | Hearing officer failed to dictate findings of fact and conclusions of law; violates APA and due process. | APA does not apply to municipalities; even if it did, the record contains implicit findings and appellant had notice and opportunity to be heard. | Court: APA inapplicable to City administrative hearing; omission not fatal because reasons are apparent in record and due process was afforded. |
| Constitutional challenges (First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, vagueness) | Ordinances are unconstitutional (various federal amendments) and unconstitutionally vague; City lacks neutral decisionmaking and imposes arbitrary penalties. | Most constitutional claims were not pleaded below (waived); ordinances establish eligibility, notice, hearing, appeal, and remedies; fines flow to general fund, not to hearing officers. | Court: Claims raised for first time on appeal waived; Fourteenth due process claims considered and rejected—ordinances are constitutional and provide procedural protections. |
| Alleged conflict in adjudicating/collecting fines (due process / Eighth) | Fines adjudicated and collected by City create a financial incentive and violate due process / excessive fines. | Hearing officers receive no financial benefit; fines go to City general fund; no proof of unconstitutional incentive or excess. | Court: Plaintiff failed to show a disqualifying financial interest or excessive fine; fines and penalties upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nola Bourbon, LLC v. City of New Orleans, 290 So.3d 225 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2020) (standards of review for appellate review of administrative decisions)
- Chaisson v. Cajun Bag & Supply Co., 708 So.2d 375 (La. 1998) (definition and evaluation of competent hearsay in administrative hearings)
- Honore' v. Dep’t of Pub. Works, 178 So.3d 1120 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2015) (hearsay admissible in administrative proceedings if reliable)
- George v. Dep’t of Fire, 637 So.2d 1097 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1994) (APA does not apply to municipal entities)
- Fransen v. City of New Orleans, 988 So.2d 225 (La. 2008) (presumption of constitutionality for municipal ordinances)
- Cain v. White, 937 F.3d 446 (5th Cir. 2019) (due process concerns where adjudicators control funds that create incentives)