Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Damages for alleged violation of 83.49(1)?
What is the Stanley decision?
Kristopher E. Fernandez, Esquire
Florida Bar Board Certified Real Estate Attorney
114 S. Fremont Avenue
Tampa, FL 33606
Office: (813) 832-6340
Cell: (813) 601-3257
Fax: (813) 251-0438
NOTICE: This email (including any attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections 2510-2521, is confidential and legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any retention, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. Please reply to the sender that you received the message in error and then delete it. Thank you
On Jul 29, 2016 1:31 PM, Dennis Chen dennis@chenlaw.net wrote:
I agree with Leonard's assessment regarding the need for multipliers on attorneys fees. I think the changes to the landlord tenant law in 2013 make the need for multipliers even more important because it made fighting eviction cases more difficult for tenants. In the almost 20 years that I have been practicing I am not aware of any significant changes to the law that were in favor of tenants. The law has become progressively more in favor of landlords. Then there was the Stanley decision. A multiplier is necessary for an attorney to take cases on a contingent basis.
Dennis A. Chen, Esq.
Chen Law Firm, PA
13360 W. Colonial Dr, Ste. 470
Winter Garden, Florida 34787
Tel: (407) 392-1872
dennis@chenlaw.netmailto:dennis@chenlaw.net
Civil Litigation * Landlord/Tenant * Real Estate Litigation
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail, including any attachment, contains legally privileged and confidential information and is intended solely for the recipient. Should the intended recipient forward this message to any person or entity, that action could constitute a waiver of the attorney-client privilege. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication was sent or received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message.
--
ExchangeDefender Message Security: Click below to verify authenticity
http://www.exchangedefender.com/verify.asp?id=u6TJa1w6027240&from=kfernandez@kfernandezlaw.com
Stanley v Quest hold that a notice to quit is irrelevant in a rent determination hearing. If the tenant doesn’t put the rent in the registry the judge must enter a default final judgment and cannot consider anything in the notice. That is off the top of my head anyone want to add something to help me out.
Leonard P. Cabral
Leonardcabral@lenslaw.com
From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Kristopher Fernandez
Sent: Friday, July 29, 2016 3:36 PM
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Damages for alleged violation of 83.49(1)?
What is the Stanley decision?
Kristopher E. Fernandez, Esquire
Florida Bar Board Certified Real Estate Attorney
114 S. Fremont Avenue
Tampa, FL 33606
Office: (813) 832-6340
Cell: (813) 601-3257
Fax: (813) 251-0438
NOTICE: This email (including any attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections 2510-2521, is confidential and legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any retention, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. Please reply to the sender that you received the message in error and then delete it. Thank you
On Jul 29, 2016 1:31 PM, Dennis Chen <dennis@chenlaw.netmailto:dennis@chenlaw.net> wrote:
I agree with Leonard's assessment regarding the need for multipliers on attorneys fees. I think the changes to the landlord tenant law in 2013 make the need for multipliers even more important because it made fighting eviction cases more difficult for tenants. In the almost 20 years that I have been practicing I am not aware of any significant changes to the law that were in favor of tenants. The law has become progressively more in favor of landlords. Then there was the Stanley decision. A multiplier is necessary for an attorney to take cases on a contingent basis.
Dennis A. Chen, Esq.
Chen Law Firm, PA
13360 W. Colonial Dr, Ste. 470
Winter Garden, Florida 34787
Tel: (407) 392-1872
dennis@chenlaw.netmailto:dennis@chenlaw.net
Civil Litigation * Landlord/Tenant * Real Estate Litigation
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail, including any attachment, contains legally privileged and confidential information and is intended solely for the recipient. Should the intended recipient forward this message to any person or entity, that action could constitute a waiver of the attorney-client privilege. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication was sent or received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message.
ExchangeDefender Message Security: Check Authenticityhttp://www.exchangedefender.com/verify.asp?id=u6TJa1w6027240&from=kfernandez@kfernandezlaw.com
Case attached.
The County Court opinion was certified to the DCA by south Florida Judge Lee, who, if you read his options, seems, in my opinion, to have a vendetta against tenants.
Leonard P. Cabral
Leonardcabral@lenslaw.com
From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Kristopher Fernandez
Sent: Friday, July 29, 2016 3:36 PM
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Damages for alleged violation of 83.49(1)?
What is the Stanley decision?
Kristopher E. Fernandez, Esquire
Florida Bar Board Certified Real Estate Attorney
114 S. Fremont Avenue
Tampa, FL 33606
Office: (813) 832-6340
Cell: (813) 601-3257
Fax: (813) 251-0438
NOTICE: This email (including any attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections 2510-2521, is confidential and legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any retention, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. Please reply to the sender that you received the message in error and then delete it. Thank you
On Jul 29, 2016 1:31 PM, Dennis Chen <dennis@chenlaw.netmailto:dennis@chenlaw.net> wrote:
I agree with Leonard's assessment regarding the need for multipliers on attorneys fees. I think the changes to the landlord tenant law in 2013 make the need for multipliers even more important because it made fighting eviction cases more difficult for tenants. In the almost 20 years that I have been practicing I am not aware of any significant changes to the law that were in favor of tenants. The law has become progressively more in favor of landlords. Then there was the Stanley decision. A multiplier is necessary for an attorney to take cases on a contingent basis.
Dennis A. Chen, Esq.
Chen Law Firm, PA
13360 W. Colonial Dr, Ste. 470
Winter Garden, Florida 34787
Tel: (407) 392-1872
dennis@chenlaw.netmailto:dennis@chenlaw.net
Civil Litigation * Landlord/Tenant * Real Estate Litigation
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail, including any attachment, contains legally privileged and confidential information and is intended solely for the recipient. Should the intended recipient forward this message to any person or entity, that action could constitute a waiver of the attorney-client privilege. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication was sent or received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message.
ExchangeDefender Message Security: Check Authenticityhttp://www.exchangedefender.com/verify.asp?id=u6TJa1w6027240&from=kfernandez@kfernandezlaw.com