## Facts

- Florida enacted ch. 77-49 creating a State Mobile Home Tenant-Landlord Commission within the Department of Business Regulation to regulate certain mobile home park rent increases.
- The legislature found an emergency in mobile home park rental accommodations and that tenants faced unequal bargaining power due to the high cost of relocating mobile homes.
- The statute required park owners to give notice of rent increases above specified levels and permitted tenants to petition for Commission review.
- After a hearing, the Commission could determine whether an increase was “unconscionable” or “not justified” and could approve the increase, deny it, or set a different rent.
- The statute permitted pass-through of certain cost increases only if “reasonable and justified,” but did not define key terms or provide a method for determining a reasonable return.
- Mobile home park owners and their association sued for declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging (among other claims) unlawful delegation of legislative power and deprivation of property without due process.
- The trial court enjoined enforcement and held the statute unconstitutional for unlawful delegation and due process violations; it did not decide equal protection.
- The state and supporting intervenors appealed directly to the Florida Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether ch. 77-49 unlawfully delegated legislative authority to an administrative commission by failing to provide adequate standards and safeguards for determining “unconscionable” rent increases and setting permissible rents.
2. Whether ch. 77-49 deprived mobile home park owners of property without due process by authorizing rent regulation under vague criteria that could prevent a reasonable return.

## Decision

- The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the judgment invalidating ch. 77-49 and enjoining its enforcement.
- The Court held the statute unconstitutionally delegated legislative power because it gave the Commission broad discretion to decide the controlling policy question—what rent is permissible—without meaningful standards or guidelines.
- The Court held the statute violated due process because the standardless scheme allowed potentially arbitrary interference with owners’ property interests and did not ensure a reasonable return.
- The Court did not reach the pleaded equal protection challenge because the case was resolved on delegation and due process grounds.

## Legal Principles

- The legislature may delegate authority to an administrative agency only if it states a policy and supplies sufficiently definite standards and safeguards to channel discretion and permit meaningful judicial review.
- Terms such as “unconscionable” and “not justified,” without defined criteria or operative factors for application, are inadequate when an agency is empowered to set or cap rent on a case-by-case basis.
- Rent regulation may be permissible under the police power, but it must be structured to avoid arbitrary deprivations of property and must allow property owners a reasonable return on investment.
- A regulatory scheme that authorizes rent setting without objective standards or a mechanism to ensure reasonable return can violate due process.

## Conclusion

Florida’s mobile home park rent-increase review statute was invalid because it vested an agency with largely unguided authority to determine permissible rents and to restrict owners’ rental income without standards adequate to prevent arbitrary decisions or to protect the owners’ due process right to a reasonable return.


Dep’t of Bus. Regul. v. Nat’l Manufactured Hous. Fed’n, Inc., 370 So. 2d 1132 (Fla. 1979)