Empathy List Archives

BB

Beverly Barnett

Fri, May 9, 2014 3:25 PM

If a three day notice is signed by the attorney, does it have to comply with the Federal Fair Debt Collection Act Section 809(a) requiring a 30 day notice?

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Manuel Farach
Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2014 11:17 AM
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County

I don’t like to file those but yes, we may have to
Thanks

[http://www.richmangreer.com/images/logo.gif]

Manuel Farach / Of Counsel - Board Certified in Real Estate Law and Business Litigation by The Florida Bar

Richman Greer P.A.
One Clearlake Centre
Suite 1504
250 Australian Avenue South
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
Office: 561.803.3500
Fax: 561.820.1608
Direct: 561.803.3501
Email: MFarach@richmangreer.com mailto:MFarach@richmangreer.com
www.RichmanGreer.com http://www.RichmanGreer.com

[http://www.richmangreer.com/emailsig/meritas.gif]

U.S. Treasury Regulation Circular 230 requires us to advise you that written communications issued by us are not intended to be and cannot be relied upon to avoid penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service.

Incoming emails are filtered which may delay receipt. This email is personal to the named recipient(s) and may be privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you received this in error. If so, any review, dissemination, or copying of this email is prohibited. Please immediately notify us by email and delete the original message..

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Leonard Cabral
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 8:51 PM
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County

File a 57.107(1) motion and see what the lawyer/tenant does. Remember you must send the motion to the tenant and hold for 21 days before filing with the court.

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Manuel Farach
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 2:54 PM
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County

Greg,
I’ll have to read those cases as I was relying on Old Port Cove (copy attached) which reads:

[10] Headnote Citing References Where they discuss the rationale, courts adopting the majority view generally conclude that an option or right of first refusal creates an interest in property. Ferrero, 536 A.2d at 1139 (“As rights of first refusal are interests in property, the great majority of American jurisdictions have applied the Rule Against Perpetuities to such rights.”); see, e.g., Stuart Kingston, 596 A.2d at 1384; Gore, 867 P.2d at 338; Martin, 348 N.E.2d at 309; Pace, 347 So.2d at 1317; Melcher, 435 P.2d at 114; McHugh, 380 S.E.2d at 874; Smith, 296 S.E.2d at 854. In Florida, however, an option does not create a legal or equitable interest in property. As we explained over fifty years ago, “until an optionee exercises the right to purchase in accordance with the terms of his option he has no estate, either legal or equitable, in the *1287 lands involved.” Gautier v. Lapof, 91 So.2d 324, 326 (Fla.1956). We have since reiterated that principle. See Leon County Educ. Facilities Auth. v. Hartsfield, 698 So.2d 526, 530 (Fla.1997) (“[T]his Court has long held that the status of parties to the ordinary lease with an option to purchase remains that of landlord and tenant until the option is exercised and that the lessee has no equitable interest in the property.”); BancFlorida v. Hayward, 689 So.2d 1052, 1054 (Fla.1997) ( “Under Florida law, an option to purchase property creates neither an equitable interest nor an equitable remedy.”).

As these cases show, Florida law has consistently held that an option does not create an interest in land. Therefore, a right of first refusal—which may or may not ripen into an option depending on whether the owner decides to sell, see, e.g., Pearson, 497 So.2d at 900—cannot create an interest in land, either.

[cid:image001.jpg@01CF6B79.66366750]

Manuel Farach / Of Counsel - Board Certified in Real Estate Law and Business Litigation by The Florida Bar

Richman Greer P.A.
One Clearlake Centre
Suite 1504
250 Australian Avenue South
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
Office: 561.803.3500
Fax: 561.820.1608
Direct: 561.803.3501
Email: MFarach@richmangreer.com mailto:MFarach@richmangreer.com
www.RichmanGreer.com http://www.RichmanGreer.com

[cid:image002.jpg@01CF6B79.66366750]

U.S. Treasury Regulation Circular 230 requires us to advise you that written communications issued by us are not intended to be and cannot be relied upon to avoid penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service.

Incoming emails are filtered which may delay receipt. This email is personal to the named recipient(s) and may be privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you received this in error. If so, any review, dissemination, or copying of this email is prohibited. Please immediately notify us by email and delete the original message..

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Gregory Dawson
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 2:41 PM
To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee'
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County

Section 68.03 of the Fla. Real Estate Transactions (Boyer) treatise indicates that an option to purchase real estate is subject to the statute of frauds, citing Minton v. Spivey, 505 So.2d 476 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). Other cases taking that position are McCollum Aviation, Inc. v. CIM Associates, Inc., 446 F. Supp. 511 (S.D. Fla. 1978) and Kamil Gowni & Shenody, Inc. v. BP Corporation North America, Inc., 2003 WL 24051561, 2003 US Dist. LEXIS 26843.

websitehttp://www.edcolaw.com/ | vCardhttp://edcolaw.com/vcards/ECA-vc-gdawson.vcf | maphttp://www.edcolaw.com/contact | emailmailto:gdawson@edcolaw.com
[cid:image003.gif@01CF6B79.66366750]http://www.edcolaw.com/

The information contained in the preceding message is intended solely for the use of the person(s) to whom it is addressed. The preceding message may contain material that is privileged or protected from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient or the individual responsible for delivery to the intended recipient, (1) do not use, disseminate, forward, or copy the preceding message and (2) please notify sender immediately by e-mail or telephone and destroy the preceding message. Thank you.

Internal Revenue Service regulations require that certain types of written advice include a disclaimer. To the extent the preceding message contains advice relating to a federal tax law issue, unless expressly stated otherwise, the advice is not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by the recipient or any other taxpayer, for the purpose of avoiding federal tax penalties, and was not written to support the promotion or marketing of any transactions or matters.

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Manuel Farach
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 1:57 PM
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County

Arlene,
The case is more complicated than it seems because the exercise of an option (if one does exist in this case) may create an equitable conversion of the oral contract to purchase. Again, this is a little complicated but Florida actually follows the minority rule and holds that an option to purchase is not an interest in real property. If it’s not an interest in real property, then I don’t believe the Statute of Frauds applies (but I’d love for you to show me otherwise)
Thanks

[cid:image001.jpg@01CF6B79.66366750]

Manuel Farach / Of Counsel - Board Certified in Real Estate Law and Business Litigation by The Florida Bar

Richman Greer P.A.
One Clearlake Centre
Suite 1504
250 Australian Avenue South
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
Office: 561.803.3500
Fax: 561.820.1608
Direct: 561.803.3501
Email: MFarach@richmangreer.com mailto:MFarach@richmangreer.com
www.RichmanGreer.com http://www.RichmanGreer.com

[cid:image002.jpg@01CF6B79.66366750]

U.S. Treasury Regulation Circular 230 requires us to advise you that written communications issued by us are not intended to be and cannot be relied upon to avoid penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service.

Incoming emails are filtered which may delay receipt. This email is personal to the named recipient(s) and may be privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you received this in error. If so, any review, dissemination, or copying of this email is prohibited. Please immediately notify us by email and delete the original message..

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Arlene C. Udick
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 1:46 PM
To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee'
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County

Dear Manny,

I may be missing something, but I believe the 2 claims are unrelated and that you can go forward with the eviction, notwithstanding the alleged oral option to purchase. It seems that the circuit court case has a statute of frauds issue, and unless the lawyer took some action relying on the option to purchase, the case should be dismissed for failure to state a claim since there is no writing to enforce the option. Arlene

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Manuel Farach
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 12:05 PM
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Subject: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County

Does anyone have case law/practical suggestions for this fact situation?
My client gives notice to leave/files for eviction against his month to month tenant as my client has a buyer for the property. I file for eviction in county court, but tenant (who is a lawyer) files suit in circuit court claiming he has an oral option to purchase the property by matching the price.
Any case law on this? I’m drawing a blank on my research as it appears to be under Rule 1.060 but there are no cases on this narrow issue
Thanks in advance
Manny

[cid:image001.jpg@01CF6B79.66366750]

Manuel Farach / Of Counsel - Board Certified in Real Estate Law and Business Litigation by The Florida Bar

Richman Greer P.A.
One Clearlake Centre
Suite 1504
250 Australian Avenue South
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
Office: 561.803.3500
Fax: 561.820.1608
Direct: 561.803.3501
Email: MFarach@richmangreer.com mailto:MFarach@richmangreer.com
www.RichmanGreer.com http://www.RichmanGreer.com

[cid:image002.jpg@01CF6B79.66366750]

U.S. Treasury Regulation Circular 230 requires us to advise you that written communications issued by us are not intended to be and cannot be relied upon to avoid penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service.

Incoming emails are filtered which may delay receipt. This email is personal to the named recipient(s) and may be privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you received this in error. If so, any review, dissemination, or copying of this email is prohibited. Please immediately notify us by email and delete the original message..

If a three day notice is signed by the attorney, does it have to comply with the Federal Fair Debt Collection Act Section 809(a) requiring a 30 day notice? From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Manuel Farach Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2014 11:17 AM To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County I don’t like to file those but yes, we may have to Thanks ________________________________ [http://www.richmangreer.com/images/logo.gif] Manuel Farach / Of Counsel - Board Certified in Real Estate Law and Business Litigation by The Florida Bar Richman Greer P.A. One Clearlake Centre Suite 1504 250 Australian Avenue South West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Office: 561.803.3500 Fax: 561.820.1608 Direct: 561.803.3501 Email: MFarach@richmangreer.com<mailto:MFarach@richmangreer.com> www.RichmanGreer.com<http://www.RichmanGreer.com> [http://www.richmangreer.com/emailsig/meritas.gif] U.S. Treasury Regulation Circular 230 requires us to advise you that written communications issued by us are not intended to be and cannot be relied upon to avoid penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service. Incoming emails are filtered which may delay receipt. This email is personal to the named recipient(s) and may be privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you received this in error. If so, any review, dissemination, or copying of this email is prohibited. Please immediately notify us by email and delete the original message.. ________________________________ From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org> [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Leonard Cabral Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 8:51 PM To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County File a 57.107(1) motion and see what the lawyer/tenant does. Remember you must send the motion to the tenant and hold for 21 days before filing with the court. From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org> [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Manuel Farach Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 2:54 PM To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County Greg, I’ll have to read those cases as I was relying on Old Port Cove (copy attached) which reads: [10] Headnote Citing References Where they discuss the rationale, courts adopting the majority view generally conclude that an option or right of first refusal creates an interest in property. Ferrero, 536 A.2d at 1139 (“As rights of first refusal are interests in property, the great majority of American jurisdictions have applied the Rule Against Perpetuities to such rights.”); see, e.g., Stuart Kingston, 596 A.2d at 1384; Gore, 867 P.2d at 338; Martin, 348 N.E.2d at 309; Pace, 347 So.2d at 1317; Melcher, 435 P.2d at 114; McHugh, 380 S.E.2d at 874; Smith, 296 S.E.2d at 854. In Florida, however, an option does not create a legal or equitable interest in property. As we explained over fifty years ago, “until an optionee exercises the right to purchase in accordance with the terms of his option he has no estate, either legal or equitable, in the *1287 lands involved.” Gautier v. Lapof, 91 So.2d 324, 326 (Fla.1956). We have since reiterated that principle. See Leon County Educ. Facilities Auth. v. Hartsfield, 698 So.2d 526, 530 (Fla.1997) (“[T]his Court has long held that the status of parties to the ordinary lease with an option to purchase remains that of landlord and tenant until the option is exercised and that the lessee has no equitable interest in the property.”); BancFlorida v. Hayward, 689 So.2d 1052, 1054 (Fla.1997) ( “Under Florida law, an option to purchase property creates neither an equitable interest nor an equitable remedy.”). As these cases show, Florida law has consistently held that an option does not create an interest in land. Therefore, a right of first refusal—which may or may not ripen into an option depending on whether the owner decides to sell, see, e.g., Pearson, 497 So.2d at 900—cannot create an interest in land, either. ________________________________ [cid:image001.jpg@01CF6B79.66366750] Manuel Farach / Of Counsel - Board Certified in Real Estate Law and Business Litigation by The Florida Bar Richman Greer P.A. One Clearlake Centre Suite 1504 250 Australian Avenue South West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Office: 561.803.3500 Fax: 561.820.1608 Direct: 561.803.3501 Email: MFarach@richmangreer.com<mailto:MFarach@richmangreer.com> www.RichmanGreer.com<http://www.RichmanGreer.com> [cid:image002.jpg@01CF6B79.66366750] U.S. Treasury Regulation Circular 230 requires us to advise you that written communications issued by us are not intended to be and cannot be relied upon to avoid penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service. Incoming emails are filtered which may delay receipt. This email is personal to the named recipient(s) and may be privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you received this in error. If so, any review, dissemination, or copying of this email is prohibited. Please immediately notify us by email and delete the original message.. ________________________________ From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org> [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Gregory Dawson Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 2:41 PM To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee' Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County Section 68.03 of the Fla. Real Estate Transactions (Boyer) treatise indicates that an option to purchase real estate is subject to the statute of frauds, citing Minton v. Spivey, 505 So.2d 476 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). Other cases taking that position are McCollum Aviation, Inc. v. CIM Associates, Inc., 446 F. Supp. 511 (S.D. Fla. 1978) and Kamil Gowni & Shenody, Inc. v. BP Corporation North America, Inc., 2003 WL 24051561, 2003 US Dist. LEXIS 26843. website<http://www.edcolaw.com/> | vCard<http://edcolaw.com/vcards/ECA-vc-gdawson.vcf> | map<http://www.edcolaw.com/contact> | email<mailto:gdawson@edcolaw.com> [cid:image003.gif@01CF6B79.66366750]<http://www.edcolaw.com/> The information contained in the preceding message is intended solely for the use of the person(s) to whom it is addressed. The preceding message may contain material that is privileged or protected from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient or the individual responsible for delivery to the intended recipient, (1) do not use, disseminate, forward, or copy the preceding message and (2) please notify sender immediately by e-mail or telephone and destroy the preceding message. Thank you. Internal Revenue Service regulations require that certain types of written advice include a disclaimer. To the extent the preceding message contains advice relating to a federal tax law issue, unless expressly stated otherwise, the advice is not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by the recipient or any other taxpayer, for the purpose of avoiding federal tax penalties, and was not written to support the promotion or marketing of any transactions or matters. From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org> [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Manuel Farach Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 1:57 PM To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County Arlene, The case is more complicated than it seems because the exercise of an option (if one does exist in this case) may create an equitable conversion of the oral contract to purchase. Again, this is a little complicated but Florida actually follows the minority rule and holds that an option to purchase is not an interest in real property. If it’s not an interest in real property, then I don’t believe the Statute of Frauds applies (but I’d love for you to show me otherwise) Thanks ________________________________ [cid:image001.jpg@01CF6B79.66366750] Manuel Farach / Of Counsel - Board Certified in Real Estate Law and Business Litigation by The Florida Bar Richman Greer P.A. One Clearlake Centre Suite 1504 250 Australian Avenue South West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Office: 561.803.3500 Fax: 561.820.1608 Direct: 561.803.3501 Email: MFarach@richmangreer.com<mailto:MFarach@richmangreer.com> www.RichmanGreer.com<http://www.RichmanGreer.com> [cid:image002.jpg@01CF6B79.66366750] U.S. Treasury Regulation Circular 230 requires us to advise you that written communications issued by us are not intended to be and cannot be relied upon to avoid penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service. Incoming emails are filtered which may delay receipt. This email is personal to the named recipient(s) and may be privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you received this in error. If so, any review, dissemination, or copying of this email is prohibited. Please immediately notify us by email and delete the original message.. ________________________________ From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org> [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Arlene C. Udick Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 1:46 PM To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee' Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County Dear Manny, I may be missing something, but I believe the 2 claims are unrelated and that you can go forward with the eviction, notwithstanding the alleged oral option to purchase. It seems that the circuit court case has a statute of frauds issue, and unless the lawyer took some action relying on the option to purchase, the case should be dismissed for failure to state a claim since there is no writing to enforce the option. Arlene From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org> [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Manuel Farach Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 12:05 PM To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee Subject: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County Does anyone have case law/practical suggestions for this fact situation? My client gives notice to leave/files for eviction against his month to month tenant as my client has a buyer for the property. I file for eviction in county court, but tenant (who is a lawyer) files suit in circuit court claiming he has an oral option to purchase the property by matching the price. Any case law on this? I’m drawing a blank on my research as it appears to be under Rule 1.060 but there are no cases on this narrow issue Thanks in advance Manny ________________________________ [cid:image001.jpg@01CF6B79.66366750] Manuel Farach / Of Counsel - Board Certified in Real Estate Law and Business Litigation by The Florida Bar Richman Greer P.A. One Clearlake Centre Suite 1504 250 Australian Avenue South West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Office: 561.803.3500 Fax: 561.820.1608 Direct: 561.803.3501 Email: MFarach@richmangreer.com<mailto:MFarach@richmangreer.com> www.RichmanGreer.com<http://www.RichmanGreer.com> [cid:image002.jpg@01CF6B79.66366750] U.S. Treasury Regulation Circular 230 requires us to advise you that written communications issued by us are not intended to be and cannot be relied upon to avoid penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service. Incoming emails are filtered which may delay receipt. This email is personal to the named recipient(s) and may be privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you received this in error. If so, any review, dissemination, or copying of this email is prohibited. Please immediately notify us by email and delete the original message.. ________________________________

LC

Leonard Cabral

Fri, May 9, 2014 5:06 PM

Maybe.
I have attached two cases for guidance. The key in my opinion is if you regularly files evictions. Again in my opinion Harry would qualify as a debt collector under the FDCPA.

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Beverly Barnett
Sent: Friday, May 09, 2014 11:26 AM
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County

If a three day notice is signed by the attorney, does it have to comply with the Federal Fair Debt Collection Act Section 809(a) requiring a 30 day notice?

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Manuel Farach
Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2014 11:17 AM
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County

I don’t like to file those but yes, we may have to
Thanks

[http://www.richmangreer.com/images/logo.gif]

Manuel Farach / Of Counsel - Board Certified in Real Estate Law and Business Litigation by The Florida Bar

Richman Greer P.A.
One Clearlake Centre
Suite 1504
250 Australian Avenue South
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
Office: 561.803.3500
Fax: 561.820.1608
Direct: 561.803.3501
Email: MFarach@richmangreer.com mailto:MFarach@richmangreer.com
www.RichmanGreer.com http://www.RichmanGreer.com

[http://www.richmangreer.com/emailsig/meritas.gif]

U.S. Treasury Regulation Circular 230 requires us to advise you that written communications issued by us are not intended to be and cannot be relied upon to avoid penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service.

Incoming emails are filtered which may delay receipt. This email is personal to the named recipient(s) and may be privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you received this in error. If so, any review, dissemination, or copying of this email is prohibited. Please immediately notify us by email and delete the original message..

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Leonard Cabral
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 8:51 PM
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County

File a 57.107(1) motion and see what the lawyer/tenant does. Remember you must send the motion to the tenant and hold for 21 days before filing with the court.

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Manuel Farach
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 2:54 PM
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County

Greg,
I’ll have to read those cases as I was relying on Old Port Cove (copy attached) which reads:

[10] Headnote Citing References Where they discuss the rationale, courts adopting the majority view generally conclude that an option or right of first refusal creates an interest in property. Ferrero, 536 A.2d at 1139 (“As rights of first refusal are interests in property, the great majority of American jurisdictions have applied the Rule Against Perpetuities to such rights.”); see, e.g., Stuart Kingston, 596 A.2d at 1384; Gore, 867 P.2d at 338; Martin, 348 N.E.2d at 309; Pace, 347 So.2d at 1317; Melcher, 435 P.2d at 114; McHugh, 380 S.E.2d at 874; Smith, 296 S.E.2d at 854. In Florida, however, an option does not create a legal or equitable interest in property. As we explained over fifty years ago, “until an optionee exercises the right to purchase in accordance with the terms of his option he has no estate, either legal or equitable, in the *1287 lands involved.” Gautier v. Lapof, 91 So.2d 324, 326 (Fla.1956). We have since reiterated that principle. See Leon County Educ. Facilities Auth. v. Hartsfield, 698 So.2d 526, 530 (Fla.1997) (“[T]his Court has long held that the status of parties to the ordinary lease with an option to purchase remains that of landlord and tenant until the option is exercised and that the lessee has no equitable interest in the property.”); BancFlorida v. Hayward, 689 So.2d 1052, 1054 (Fla.1997) ( “Under Florida law, an option to purchase property creates neither an equitable interest nor an equitable remedy.”).

As these cases show, Florida law has consistently held that an option does not create an interest in land. Therefore, a right of first refusal—which may or may not ripen into an option depending on whether the owner decides to sell, see, e.g., Pearson, 497 So.2d at 900—cannot create an interest in land, either.

[Image removed by sender.]

Manuel Farach / Of Counsel - Board Certified in Real Estate Law and Business Litigation by The Florida Bar

Richman Greer P.A.
One Clearlake Centre
Suite 1504
250 Australian Avenue South
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
Office: 561.803.3500
Fax: 561.820.1608
Direct: 561.803.3501
Email: MFarach@richmangreer.com mailto:MFarach@richmangreer.com
www.RichmanGreer.com http://www.RichmanGreer.com

[Image removed by sender.]

U.S. Treasury Regulation Circular 230 requires us to advise you that written communications issued by us are not intended to be and cannot be relied upon to avoid penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service.

Incoming emails are filtered which may delay receipt. This email is personal to the named recipient(s) and may be privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you received this in error. If so, any review, dissemination, or copying of this email is prohibited. Please immediately notify us by email and delete the original message..

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Gregory Dawson
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 2:41 PM
To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee'
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County

Section 68.03 of the Fla. Real Estate Transactions (Boyer) treatise indicates that an option to purchase real estate is subject to the statute of frauds, citing Minton v. Spivey, 505 So.2d 476 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). Other cases taking that position are McCollum Aviation, Inc. v. CIM Associates, Inc., 446 F. Supp. 511 (S.D. Fla. 1978) and Kamil Gowni & Shenody, Inc. v. BP Corporation North America, Inc., 2003 WL 24051561, 2003 US Dist. LEXIS 26843.

websitehttp://www.edcolaw.com/ | vCardhttp://edcolaw.com/vcards/ECA-vc-gdawson.vcf | maphttp://www.edcolaw.com/contact | emailmailto:gdawson@edcolaw.com
[Description: http://edcolaw.com/vcards/ECA-sig3-gdawson.gif]http://www.edcolaw.com/

The information contained in the preceding message is intended solely for the use of the person(s) to whom it is addressed. The preceding message may contain material that is privileged or protected from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient or the individual responsible for delivery to the intended recipient, (1) do not use, disseminate, forward, or copy the preceding message and (2) please notify sender immediately by e-mail or telephone and destroy the preceding message. Thank you.

Internal Revenue Service regulations require that certain types of written advice include a disclaimer. To the extent the preceding message contains advice relating to a federal tax law issue, unless expressly stated otherwise, the advice is not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by the recipient or any other taxpayer, for the purpose of avoiding federal tax penalties, and was not written to support the promotion or marketing of any transactions or matters.

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Manuel Farach
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 1:57 PM
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County

Arlene,
The case is more complicated than it seems because the exercise of an option (if one does exist in this case) may create an equitable conversion of the oral contract to purchase. Again, this is a little complicated but Florida actually follows the minority rule and holds that an option to purchase is not an interest in real property. If it’s not an interest in real property, then I don’t believe the Statute of Frauds applies (but I’d love for you to show me otherwise)
Thanks

[Image removed by sender.]

Manuel Farach / Of Counsel - Board Certified in Real Estate Law and Business Litigation by The Florida Bar

Richman Greer P.A.
One Clearlake Centre
Suite 1504
250 Australian Avenue South
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
Office: 561.803.3500
Fax: 561.820.1608
Direct: 561.803.3501
Email: MFarach@richmangreer.com mailto:MFarach@richmangreer.com
www.RichmanGreer.com http://www.RichmanGreer.com

[Image removed by sender.]

U.S. Treasury Regulation Circular 230 requires us to advise you that written communications issued by us are not intended to be and cannot be relied upon to avoid penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service.

Incoming emails are filtered which may delay receipt. This email is personal to the named recipient(s) and may be privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you received this in error. If so, any review, dissemination, or copying of this email is prohibited. Please immediately notify us by email and delete the original message..

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Arlene C. Udick
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 1:46 PM
To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee'
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County

Dear Manny,

I may be missing something, but I believe the 2 claims are unrelated and that you can go forward with the eviction, notwithstanding the alleged oral option to purchase. It seems that the circuit court case has a statute of frauds issue, and unless the lawyer took some action relying on the option to purchase, the case should be dismissed for failure to state a claim since there is no writing to enforce the option. Arlene

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Manuel Farach
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 12:05 PM
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Subject: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County

Does anyone have case law/practical suggestions for this fact situation?
My client gives notice to leave/files for eviction against his month to month tenant as my client has a buyer for the property. I file for eviction in county court, but tenant (who is a lawyer) files suit in circuit court claiming he has an oral option to purchase the property by matching the price.
Any case law on this? I’m drawing a blank on my research as it appears to be under Rule 1.060 but there are no cases on this narrow issue
Thanks in advance
Manny

[Image removed by sender.]

Manuel Farach / Of Counsel - Board Certified in Real Estate Law and Business Litigation by The Florida Bar

Richman Greer P.A.
One Clearlake Centre
Suite 1504
250 Australian Avenue South
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
Office: 561.803.3500
Fax: 561.820.1608
Direct: 561.803.3501
Email: MFarach@richmangreer.com mailto:MFarach@richmangreer.com
www.RichmanGreer.com http://www.RichmanGreer.com

[Image removed by sender.]

U.S. Treasury Regulation Circular 230 requires us to advise you that written communications issued by us are not intended to be and cannot be relied upon to avoid penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service.

Incoming emails are filtered which may delay receipt. This email is personal to the named recipient(s) and may be privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you received this in error. If so, any review, dissemination, or copying of this email is prohibited. Please immediately notify us by email and delete the original message..

Maybe. I have attached two cases for guidance. The key in my opinion is if you regularly files evictions. Again in my opinion Harry would qualify as a debt collector under the FDCPA. From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Beverly Barnett Sent: Friday, May 09, 2014 11:26 AM To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County If a three day notice is signed by the attorney, does it have to comply with the Federal Fair Debt Collection Act Section 809(a) requiring a 30 day notice? From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org> [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Manuel Farach Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2014 11:17 AM To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County I don’t like to file those but yes, we may have to Thanks ________________________________ [http://www.richmangreer.com/images/logo.gif] Manuel Farach / Of Counsel - Board Certified in Real Estate Law and Business Litigation by The Florida Bar Richman Greer P.A. One Clearlake Centre Suite 1504 250 Australian Avenue South West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Office: 561.803.3500 Fax: 561.820.1608 Direct: 561.803.3501 Email: MFarach@richmangreer.com<mailto:MFarach@richmangreer.com> www.RichmanGreer.com<http://www.RichmanGreer.com> [http://www.richmangreer.com/emailsig/meritas.gif] U.S. Treasury Regulation Circular 230 requires us to advise you that written communications issued by us are not intended to be and cannot be relied upon to avoid penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service. Incoming emails are filtered which may delay receipt. This email is personal to the named recipient(s) and may be privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you received this in error. If so, any review, dissemination, or copying of this email is prohibited. Please immediately notify us by email and delete the original message.. ________________________________ From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org> [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Leonard Cabral Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 8:51 PM To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County File a 57.107(1) motion and see what the lawyer/tenant does. Remember you must send the motion to the tenant and hold for 21 days before filing with the court. From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org> [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Manuel Farach Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 2:54 PM To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County Greg, I’ll have to read those cases as I was relying on Old Port Cove (copy attached) which reads: [10] Headnote Citing References Where they discuss the rationale, courts adopting the majority view generally conclude that an option or right of first refusal creates an interest in property. Ferrero, 536 A.2d at 1139 (“As rights of first refusal are interests in property, the great majority of American jurisdictions have applied the Rule Against Perpetuities to such rights.”); see, e.g., Stuart Kingston, 596 A.2d at 1384; Gore, 867 P.2d at 338; Martin, 348 N.E.2d at 309; Pace, 347 So.2d at 1317; Melcher, 435 P.2d at 114; McHugh, 380 S.E.2d at 874; Smith, 296 S.E.2d at 854. In Florida, however, an option does not create a legal or equitable interest in property. As we explained over fifty years ago, “until an optionee exercises the right to purchase in accordance with the terms of his option he has no estate, either legal or equitable, in the *1287 lands involved.” Gautier v. Lapof, 91 So.2d 324, 326 (Fla.1956). We have since reiterated that principle. See Leon County Educ. Facilities Auth. v. Hartsfield, 698 So.2d 526, 530 (Fla.1997) (“[T]his Court has long held that the status of parties to the ordinary lease with an option to purchase remains that of landlord and tenant until the option is exercised and that the lessee has no equitable interest in the property.”); BancFlorida v. Hayward, 689 So.2d 1052, 1054 (Fla.1997) ( “Under Florida law, an option to purchase property creates neither an equitable interest nor an equitable remedy.”). As these cases show, Florida law has consistently held that an option does not create an interest in land. Therefore, a right of first refusal—which may or may not ripen into an option depending on whether the owner decides to sell, see, e.g., Pearson, 497 So.2d at 900—cannot create an interest in land, either. ________________________________ [Image removed by sender.] Manuel Farach / Of Counsel - Board Certified in Real Estate Law and Business Litigation by The Florida Bar Richman Greer P.A. One Clearlake Centre Suite 1504 250 Australian Avenue South West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Office: 561.803.3500 Fax: 561.820.1608 Direct: 561.803.3501 Email: MFarach@richmangreer.com<mailto:MFarach@richmangreer.com> www.RichmanGreer.com<http://www.RichmanGreer.com> [Image removed by sender.] U.S. Treasury Regulation Circular 230 requires us to advise you that written communications issued by us are not intended to be and cannot be relied upon to avoid penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service. Incoming emails are filtered which may delay receipt. This email is personal to the named recipient(s) and may be privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you received this in error. If so, any review, dissemination, or copying of this email is prohibited. Please immediately notify us by email and delete the original message.. ________________________________ From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org> [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Gregory Dawson Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 2:41 PM To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee' Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County Section 68.03 of the Fla. Real Estate Transactions (Boyer) treatise indicates that an option to purchase real estate is subject to the statute of frauds, citing Minton v. Spivey, 505 So.2d 476 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). Other cases taking that position are McCollum Aviation, Inc. v. CIM Associates, Inc., 446 F. Supp. 511 (S.D. Fla. 1978) and Kamil Gowni & Shenody, Inc. v. BP Corporation North America, Inc., 2003 WL 24051561, 2003 US Dist. LEXIS 26843. website<http://www.edcolaw.com/> | vCard<http://edcolaw.com/vcards/ECA-vc-gdawson.vcf> | map<http://www.edcolaw.com/contact> | email<mailto:gdawson@edcolaw.com> [Description: http://edcolaw.com/vcards/ECA-sig3-gdawson.gif]<http://www.edcolaw.com/> The information contained in the preceding message is intended solely for the use of the person(s) to whom it is addressed. The preceding message may contain material that is privileged or protected from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient or the individual responsible for delivery to the intended recipient, (1) do not use, disseminate, forward, or copy the preceding message and (2) please notify sender immediately by e-mail or telephone and destroy the preceding message. Thank you. Internal Revenue Service regulations require that certain types of written advice include a disclaimer. To the extent the preceding message contains advice relating to a federal tax law issue, unless expressly stated otherwise, the advice is not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by the recipient or any other taxpayer, for the purpose of avoiding federal tax penalties, and was not written to support the promotion or marketing of any transactions or matters. From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org> [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Manuel Farach Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 1:57 PM To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County Arlene, The case is more complicated than it seems because the exercise of an option (if one does exist in this case) may create an equitable conversion of the oral contract to purchase. Again, this is a little complicated but Florida actually follows the minority rule and holds that an option to purchase is not an interest in real property. If it’s not an interest in real property, then I don’t believe the Statute of Frauds applies (but I’d love for you to show me otherwise) Thanks ________________________________ [Image removed by sender.] Manuel Farach / Of Counsel - Board Certified in Real Estate Law and Business Litigation by The Florida Bar Richman Greer P.A. One Clearlake Centre Suite 1504 250 Australian Avenue South West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Office: 561.803.3500 Fax: 561.820.1608 Direct: 561.803.3501 Email: MFarach@richmangreer.com<mailto:MFarach@richmangreer.com> www.RichmanGreer.com<http://www.RichmanGreer.com> [Image removed by sender.] U.S. Treasury Regulation Circular 230 requires us to advise you that written communications issued by us are not intended to be and cannot be relied upon to avoid penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service. Incoming emails are filtered which may delay receipt. This email is personal to the named recipient(s) and may be privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you received this in error. If so, any review, dissemination, or copying of this email is prohibited. Please immediately notify us by email and delete the original message.. ________________________________ From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org> [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Arlene C. Udick Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 1:46 PM To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee' Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County Dear Manny, I may be missing something, but I believe the 2 claims are unrelated and that you can go forward with the eviction, notwithstanding the alleged oral option to purchase. It seems that the circuit court case has a statute of frauds issue, and unless the lawyer took some action relying on the option to purchase, the case should be dismissed for failure to state a claim since there is no writing to enforce the option. Arlene From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org> [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Manuel Farach Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 12:05 PM To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee Subject: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County Does anyone have case law/practical suggestions for this fact situation? My client gives notice to leave/files for eviction against his month to month tenant as my client has a buyer for the property. I file for eviction in county court, but tenant (who is a lawyer) files suit in circuit court claiming he has an oral option to purchase the property by matching the price. Any case law on this? I’m drawing a blank on my research as it appears to be under Rule 1.060 but there are no cases on this narrow issue Thanks in advance Manny ________________________________ [Image removed by sender.] Manuel Farach / Of Counsel - Board Certified in Real Estate Law and Business Litigation by The Florida Bar Richman Greer P.A. One Clearlake Centre Suite 1504 250 Australian Avenue South West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Office: 561.803.3500 Fax: 561.820.1608 Direct: 561.803.3501 Email: MFarach@richmangreer.com<mailto:MFarach@richmangreer.com> www.RichmanGreer.com<http://www.RichmanGreer.com> [Image removed by sender.] U.S. Treasury Regulation Circular 230 requires us to advise you that written communications issued by us are not intended to be and cannot be relied upon to avoid penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service. Incoming emails are filtered which may delay receipt. This email is personal to the named recipient(s) and may be privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you received this in error. If so, any review, dissemination, or copying of this email is prohibited. Please immediately notify us by email and delete the original message.. ________________________________

CS

Cary Sabol

Fri, May 9, 2014 5:09 PM

Personally I don't believe the FDCPA applies to a 3 day notice situation, however, I have been including the FDCPA Notice on any 3 day notice that I prepare for a few years now just in case.

Cary
Law Offices of Cary P. Sabol
P.O. Box 15981 | West Palm Beach | Florida | 33416
Phone: (561) 281-2744

IRS Circular 230 Notice: Pursuant to recently enacted U.S. Treasury Department Regulations, we are now required to advise you that, unless otherwise expressly indicated, any federal tax advice expressed above was neither written nor intended by the sender or this firm to be used and cannot be used by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed under U.S. tax law. If any person uses or refers to any such tax advice in promoting, marketing or recommending a partnership or other entity, investment plan or arrangement to any taxpayer, then the advice should be considered to have been written to support the promotion or marketing by a person other than the sender or this firm of that transaction or matter, and such taxpayer should seek advice based on the taxpayer's particular circumstances from an independent tax advisor.

Confidentiality Notice: This electronic mail transmission is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential information belonging to the sender which is protected by the attorney-client privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete the original message. Thank you for your cooperation.
On Friday, May 9, 2014 1:07 PM, Leonard Cabral leonardcabral@lenslaw.com wrote:

Maybe.
I have attached two cases for guidance. The key in my opinion is if you regularly files evictions. Again in my opinion Harry would qualify as a debt collector under the FDCPA.

From:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Beverly Barnett
Sent: Friday, May 09, 2014 11:26 AM
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County

If a three day notice is signed by the attorney, does it have to comply with the Federal Fair Debt Collection Act Section 809(a) requiring a 30 day notice?

From:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Manuel Farach
Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2014 11:17 AM
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County

I don’t like to file those but yes, we may have to
Thanks

Manuel Farach / Of Counsel - Board Certified in Real Estate Law and Business Litigation by The Florida Bar
Richman Greer P.A.
One Clearlake Centre
Suite 1504
250 Australian Avenue South
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
Office: 561.803.3500
Fax: 561.820.1608
Direct: 561.803.3501
Email: MFarach@richmangreer.com
http://www.richmangreer.com/
U.S. Treasury Regulation Circular 230 requires us to advise you that written communications issued by us are not intended to be and cannot be relied upon to avoid penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service.
Incoming emails are filtered which may delay receipt. This email is personal to the named recipient(s) and may be privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you received this in error. If so, any review, dissemination, or copying of this email is prohibited. Please immediately notify us by email and delete the original message..

From:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Leonard Cabral
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 8:51 PM
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County

File a 57.107(1) motion and see what the lawyer/tenant does. Remember you must send the motion to the tenant and hold for 21 days before filing with the court.

From:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Manuel Farach
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 2:54 PM
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County

Greg,
I’ll have to read those cases as I was relying on Old Port Cove (copy attached) which reads:

[10] Headnote Citing References Where they discuss the rationale, courts adopting the majority view generally conclude that an option or right of first refusal creates an interest in property. Ferrero, 536 A.2d at 1139 (“As rights of first refusal are interests in property, the great majority of American jurisdictions have applied the Rule Against Perpetuities to such rights.”); see, e.g., Stuart Kingston, 596 A.2d at 1384; Gore, 867 P.2d at 338; Martin, 348 N.E.2d at 309; Pace, 347 So.2d at 1317; Melcher, 435 P.2d at 114; McHugh, 380 S.E.2d at 874; Smith, 296 S.E.2d at 854. In Florida, however, an option does not create a legal or equitable interest in property. As we explained over fifty years ago, “until an optionee exercises the right to purchase in accordance with the terms of his option he has no estate, either legal or equitable, in the *1287 lands involved.” Gautier v. Lapof, 91 So.2d 324, 326 (Fla.1956). We have since reiterated that
principle. See Leon County Educ. Facilities Auth. v. Hartsfield, 698 So.2d 526, 530 (Fla.1997) (“[T]his Court has long held that the status of parties to the ordinary lease with an option to purchase remains that of landlord and tenant until the option is exercised and that the lessee has no equitable interest in the property.”); BancFlorida v. Hayward, 689 So.2d 1052, 1054 (Fla.1997) ( “Under Florida law, an option to purchase property creates neither an equitable interest nor an equitable remedy.”).

As these cases show, Florida law has consistently held that an option does not create an interest in land. Therefore, a right of first refusal—which may or may not ripen into an option depending on whether the owner decides to sell, see, e.g., Pearson, 497 So.2d at 900—cannot create an interest in land, either.

Manuel Farach / Of Counsel - Board Certified in Real Estate Law and Business Litigation by The Florida Bar
Richman Greer P.A.
One Clearlake Centre
Suite 1504
250 Australian Avenue South
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
Office: 561.803.3500
Fax: 561.820.1608
Direct: 561.803.3501
Email: MFarach@richmangreer.com
http://www.richmangreer.com/
U.S. Treasury Regulation Circular 230 requires us to advise you that written communications issued by us are not intended to be and cannot be relied upon to avoid penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service.
Incoming emails are filtered which may delay receipt. This email is personal to the named recipient(s) and may be privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you received this in error. If so, any review, dissemination, or copying of this email is prohibited. Please immediately notify us by email and delete the original message..

From:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Gregory Dawson
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 2:41 PM
To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee'
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County

Section 68.03 of the Fla. Real Estate Transactions (Boyer) treatise indicates that an option to purchase real estate is subject to the statute of frauds, citing Minton v. Spivey, 505 So.2d 476 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). Other cases taking that position are McCollum Aviation, Inc. v. CIM Associates, Inc., 446 F. Supp. 511 (S.D. Fla. 1978) and Kamil Gowni & Shenody, Inc. v. BP Corporation North America, Inc., 2003 WL 24051561, 2003 US Dist. LEXIS 26843.

website | vCard | map | email
The information contained in the preceding message is intended solely for the use of the person(s) to whom it is addressed. The preceding message may contain material that is privileged or protected from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient or the individual responsible for delivery to the intended recipient, (1) do not use, disseminate, forward, or copy the preceding message and (2) please notify sender immediately by e-mail or telephone and destroy the preceding message. Thank you.

Internal Revenue Service regulations require that certain types of written advice include a disclaimer. To the extent the preceding message contains advice relating to a federal tax law issue, unless expressly stated otherwise, the advice is not intended or
written to be used, and it cannot be used, by the recipient or any other taxpayer, for the purpose of avoiding federal tax penalties, and was not written to support the promotion or marketing of any transactions or matters.

From:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Manuel Farach
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 1:57 PM
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County

Arlene,
The case is more complicated than it seems because the exercise of an option (if one does exist in this case) may create an equitable conversion of the oral contract to purchase. Again, this is a little complicated but Florida actually follows the minority rule and holds that an option to purchase is not an interest in real property. If it’s not an interest in real property, then I don’t believe the Statute of Frauds applies (but I’d love for you to show me otherwise)
Thanks

Manuel Farach / Of Counsel - Board Certified in Real Estate Law and Business Litigation by The Florida Bar
Richman Greer P.A.
One Clearlake Centre
Suite 1504
250 Australian Avenue South
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
Office: 561.803.3500
Fax: 561.820.1608
Direct: 561.803.3501
Email: MFarach@richmangreer.com
http://www.richmangreer.com/
U.S. Treasury Regulation Circular 230 requires us to advise you that written communications issued by us are not intended to be and cannot be relied upon to avoid penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service.
Incoming emails are filtered which may delay receipt. This email is personal to the named recipient(s) and may be privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you received this in error. If so, any review, dissemination, or copying of this email is prohibited. Please immediately notify us by email and delete the original message..

From:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Arlene C. Udick
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 1:46 PM
To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee'
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County

Dear Manny,

I may be missing something, but I believe the 2 claims are unrelated and that you can go forward with the eviction, notwithstanding the alleged oral option to purchase. It seems that the circuit court case has a statute of frauds issue, and unless the lawyer took some action relying on the option to purchase, the case should be dismissed for failure to state a claim since there is no writing to enforce the option. Arlene

From:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Manuel Farach
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 12:05 PM
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Subject: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County

Does anyone have case law/practical suggestions for this fact situation?
My client gives notice to leave/files for eviction against his month to month tenant as my client has a buyer for the property. I file for eviction in county court, but tenant (who is a lawyer) files suit in circuit court claiming he has an oral option to purchase the property by matching the price.
Any case law on this? I’m drawing a blank on my research as it appears to be under Rule 1.060 but there are no cases on this narrow issue
Thanks in advance
Manny

Manuel Farach / Of Counsel - Board Certified in Real Estate Law and Business Litigation by The Florida Bar
Richman Greer P.A.
One Clearlake Centre
Suite 1504
250 Australian Avenue South
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
Office: 561.803.3500
Fax: 561.820.1608
Direct: 561.803.3501
Email: MFarach@richmangreer.com
http://www.richmangreer.com/
U.S. Treasury Regulation Circular 230 requires us to advise you that written communications issued by us are not intended to be and cannot be relied upon to avoid penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service.
Incoming emails are filtered which may delay receipt. This email is personal to the named recipient(s) and may be privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you received this in error. If so, any review, dissemination, or copying of this email is prohibited. Please immediately notify us by email and delete the original message..

landten mailing list
landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org
http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/landten

Personally I don't believe the FDCPA applies to a 3 day notice situation, however, I have been including the FDCPA Notice on any 3 day notice that I prepare for a few years now just in case. Cary Law Offices of Cary P. Sabol P.O. Box 15981 | West Palm Beach | Florida | 33416 Phone: (561) 281-2744 ________________________________ IRS Circular 230 Notice: Pursuant to recently enacted U.S. Treasury Department Regulations, we are now required to advise you that, unless otherwise expressly indicated, any federal tax advice expressed above was neither written nor intended by the sender or this firm to be used and cannot be used by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed under U.S. tax law. If any person uses or refers to any such tax advice in promoting, marketing or recommending a partnership or other entity, investment plan or arrangement to any taxpayer, then the advice should be considered to have been written to support the promotion or marketing by a person other than the sender or this firm of that transaction or matter, and such taxpayer should seek advice based on the taxpayer's particular circumstances from an independent tax advisor. Confidentiality Notice: This electronic mail transmission is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential information belonging to the sender which is protected by the attorney-client privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete the original message. Thank you for your cooperation. On Friday, May 9, 2014 1:07 PM, Leonard Cabral <leonardcabral@lenslaw.com> wrote: Maybe. I have attached two cases for guidance. The key in my opinion is if you regularly files evictions. Again in my opinion Harry would qualify as a debt collector under the FDCPA. From:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Beverly Barnett Sent: Friday, May 09, 2014 11:26 AM To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County If a three day notice is signed by the attorney, does it have to comply with the Federal Fair Debt Collection Act Section 809(a) requiring a 30 day notice? From:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Manuel Farach Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2014 11:17 AM To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County I don’t like to file those but yes, we may have to Thanks ________________________________ Manuel Farach / Of Counsel - Board Certified in Real Estate Law and Business Litigation by The Florida Bar Richman Greer P.A. One Clearlake Centre Suite 1504 250 Australian Avenue South West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Office: 561.803.3500 Fax: 561.820.1608 Direct: 561.803.3501 Email: MFarach@richmangreer.com http://www.richmangreer.com/ U.S. Treasury Regulation Circular 230 requires us to advise you that written communications issued by us are not intended to be and cannot be relied upon to avoid penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service. Incoming emails are filtered which may delay receipt. This email is personal to the named recipient(s) and may be privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you received this in error. If so, any review, dissemination, or copying of this email is prohibited. Please immediately notify us by email and delete the original message.. ________________________________ From:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Leonard Cabral Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 8:51 PM To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County File a 57.107(1) motion and see what the lawyer/tenant does. Remember you must send the motion to the tenant and hold for 21 days before filing with the court. From:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Manuel Farach Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 2:54 PM To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County Greg, I’ll have to read those cases as I was relying on Old Port Cove (copy attached) which reads: [10] Headnote Citing References Where they discuss the rationale, courts adopting the majority view generally conclude that an option or right of first refusal creates an interest in property. Ferrero, 536 A.2d at 1139 (“As rights of first refusal are interests in property, the great majority of American jurisdictions have applied the Rule Against Perpetuities to such rights.”); see, e.g., Stuart Kingston, 596 A.2d at 1384; Gore, 867 P.2d at 338; Martin, 348 N.E.2d at 309; Pace, 347 So.2d at 1317; Melcher, 435 P.2d at 114; McHugh, 380 S.E.2d at 874; Smith, 296 S.E.2d at 854. In Florida, however, an option does not create a legal or equitable interest in property. As we explained over fifty years ago, “until an optionee exercises the right to purchase in accordance with the terms of his option he has no estate, either legal or equitable, in the *1287 lands involved.” Gautier v. Lapof, 91 So.2d 324, 326 (Fla.1956). We have since reiterated that principle. See Leon County Educ. Facilities Auth. v. Hartsfield, 698 So.2d 526, 530 (Fla.1997) (“[T]his Court has long held that the status of parties to the ordinary lease with an option to purchase remains that of landlord and tenant until the option is exercised and that the lessee has no equitable interest in the property.”); BancFlorida v. Hayward, 689 So.2d 1052, 1054 (Fla.1997) ( “Under Florida law, an option to purchase property creates neither an equitable interest nor an equitable remedy.”). As these cases show, Florida law has consistently held that an option does not create an interest in land. Therefore, a right of first refusal—which may or may not ripen into an option depending on whether the owner decides to sell, see, e.g., Pearson, 497 So.2d at 900—cannot create an interest in land, either. ________________________________ Manuel Farach / Of Counsel - Board Certified in Real Estate Law and Business Litigation by The Florida Bar Richman Greer P.A. One Clearlake Centre Suite 1504 250 Australian Avenue South West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Office: 561.803.3500 Fax: 561.820.1608 Direct: 561.803.3501 Email: MFarach@richmangreer.com http://www.richmangreer.com/ U.S. Treasury Regulation Circular 230 requires us to advise you that written communications issued by us are not intended to be and cannot be relied upon to avoid penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service. Incoming emails are filtered which may delay receipt. This email is personal to the named recipient(s) and may be privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you received this in error. If so, any review, dissemination, or copying of this email is prohibited. Please immediately notify us by email and delete the original message.. ________________________________ From:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Gregory Dawson Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 2:41 PM To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee' Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County Section 68.03 of the Fla. Real Estate Transactions (Boyer) treatise indicates that an option to purchase real estate is subject to the statute of frauds, citing Minton v. Spivey, 505 So.2d 476 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). Other cases taking that position are McCollum Aviation, Inc. v. CIM Associates, Inc., 446 F. Supp. 511 (S.D. Fla. 1978) and Kamil Gowni & Shenody, Inc. v. BP Corporation North America, Inc., 2003 WL 24051561, 2003 US Dist. LEXIS 26843. website | vCard | map | email The information contained in the preceding message is intended solely for the use of the person(s) to whom it is addressed. The preceding message may contain material that is privileged or protected from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient or the individual responsible for delivery to the intended recipient, (1) do not use, disseminate, forward, or copy the preceding message and (2) please notify sender immediately by e-mail or telephone and destroy the preceding message. Thank you. Internal Revenue Service regulations require that certain types of written advice include a disclaimer. To the extent the preceding message contains advice relating to a federal tax law issue, unless expressly stated otherwise, the advice is not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by the recipient or any other taxpayer, for the purpose of avoiding federal tax penalties, and was not written to support the promotion or marketing of any transactions or matters. From:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Manuel Farach Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 1:57 PM To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County Arlene, The case is more complicated than it seems because the exercise of an option (if one does exist in this case) may create an equitable conversion of the oral contract to purchase. Again, this is a little complicated but Florida actually follows the minority rule and holds that an option to purchase is not an interest in real property. If it’s not an interest in real property, then I don’t believe the Statute of Frauds applies (but I’d love for you to show me otherwise) Thanks ________________________________ Manuel Farach / Of Counsel - Board Certified in Real Estate Law and Business Litigation by The Florida Bar Richman Greer P.A. One Clearlake Centre Suite 1504 250 Australian Avenue South West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Office: 561.803.3500 Fax: 561.820.1608 Direct: 561.803.3501 Email: MFarach@richmangreer.com http://www.richmangreer.com/ U.S. Treasury Regulation Circular 230 requires us to advise you that written communications issued by us are not intended to be and cannot be relied upon to avoid penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service. Incoming emails are filtered which may delay receipt. This email is personal to the named recipient(s) and may be privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you received this in error. If so, any review, dissemination, or copying of this email is prohibited. Please immediately notify us by email and delete the original message.. ________________________________ From:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Arlene C. Udick Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 1:46 PM To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee' Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County Dear Manny, I may be missing something, but I believe the 2 claims are unrelated and that you can go forward with the eviction, notwithstanding the alleged oral option to purchase. It seems that the circuit court case has a statute of frauds issue, and unless the lawyer took some action relying on the option to purchase, the case should be dismissed for failure to state a claim since there is no writing to enforce the option. Arlene From:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Manuel Farach Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 12:05 PM To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee Subject: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County Does anyone have case law/practical suggestions for this fact situation? My client gives notice to leave/files for eviction against his month to month tenant as my client has a buyer for the property. I file for eviction in county court, but tenant (who is a lawyer) files suit in circuit court claiming he has an oral option to purchase the property by matching the price. Any case law on this? I’m drawing a blank on my research as it appears to be under Rule 1.060 but there are no cases on this narrow issue Thanks in advance Manny ________________________________ Manuel Farach / Of Counsel - Board Certified in Real Estate Law and Business Litigation by The Florida Bar Richman Greer P.A. One Clearlake Centre Suite 1504 250 Australian Avenue South West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Office: 561.803.3500 Fax: 561.820.1608 Direct: 561.803.3501 Email: MFarach@richmangreer.com http://www.richmangreer.com/ U.S. Treasury Regulation Circular 230 requires us to advise you that written communications issued by us are not intended to be and cannot be relied upon to avoid penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service. Incoming emails are filtered which may delay receipt. This email is personal to the named recipient(s) and may be privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you received this in error. If so, any review, dissemination, or copying of this email is prohibited. Please immediately notify us by email and delete the original message.. ________________________________ _______________________________________________ landten mailing list landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/landten

MF

Manuel Farach

Fri, May 9, 2014 5:15 PM

I don't think that evicting a tenant is considered "debt collection activity" sufficient to come under the FDCPA. Unfortunatley, I'm out of the office and can't point you to a case

Sent from my iPad

On May 9, 2014, at 1:14 PM, "Cary Sabol" <sabollawoffice@yahoo.com mailto:sabollawoffice@yahoo.com> wrote:

Personally I don't believe the FDCPA applies to a 3 day notice situation, however, I have been including the FDCPA Notice on any 3 day notice that I prepare for a few years now just in case.

Cary
Law Offices of Cary P. Sabol
P.O. Box 15981 | West Palm Beach | Florida | 33416
Phone: (561) 281-2744
IRS Circular 230 Notice: Pursuant to recently enacted U.S. Treasury Department Regulations, we are now required to advise you that, unless otherwise expressly indicated, any federal tax advice expressed above was neither written nor intended by the sender or this firm to be used and cannot be used by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed under U.S. tax law. If any person uses or refers to any such tax advice in promoting, marketing or recommending a partnership or other entity, investment plan or arrangement to any taxpayer, then the advice should be considered to have been written to support the promotion or marketing by a person other than the sender or this firm of that transaction or matter, and such taxpayer should seek advice based on the taxpayer's particular circumstances from an independent tax advisor.

Confidentiality Notice: This electronic mail transmission is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential information belonging to the sender which is protected by the attorney-client privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete the original message. Thank you for your cooperation.
On Friday, May 9, 2014 1:07 PM, Leonard Cabral <leonardcabral@lenslaw.com mailto:leonardcabral@lenslaw.com> wrote:
Maybe.
I have attached two cases for guidance. The key in my opinion is if you regularly files evictions. Again in my opinion Harry would qualify as a debt collector under the FDCPA.

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Beverly Barnett
Sent: Friday, May 09, 2014 11:26 AM
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County

If a three day notice is signed by the attorney, does it have to comply with the Federal Fair Debt Collection Act Section 809(a) requiring a 30 day notice?

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Manuel Farach
Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2014 11:17 AM
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County

I don’t like to file those but yes, we may have to
Thanks

[http://www.richmangreer.com/images/logo.gif]
Manuel Farach / Of Counsel - Board Certified in Real Estate Law and Business Litigation by The Florida Bar
Richman Greer P.A.
One Clearlake Centre
Suite 1504
250 Australian Avenue South
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
Office: 561.803.3500
Fax: 561.820.1608
Direct: 561.803.3501
Email: MFarach@richmangreer.com mailto:MFarach@richmangreer.com
http://www.richmangreer.com/
[http://www.richmangreer.com/emailsig/meritas.gif]
U.S. Treasury Regulation Circular 230 requires us to advise you that written communications issued by us are not intended to be and cannot be relied upon to avoid penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service.
Incoming emails are filtered which may delay receipt. This email is personal to the named recipient(s) and may be privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you received this in error. If so, any review, dissemination, or copying of this email is prohibited. Please immediately notify us by email and delete the original message..

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Leonard Cabral
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 8:51 PM
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County

File a 57.107(1) motion and see what the lawyer/tenant does. Remember you must send the motion to the tenant and hold for 21 days before filing with the court.

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Manuel Farach
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 2:54 PM
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County

Greg,
I’ll have to read those cases as I was relying on Old Port Cove (copy attached) which reads:

[10] Headnote Citing References Where they discuss the rationale, courts adopting the majority view generally conclude that an option or right of first refusal creates an interest in property. Ferrero, 536 A.2d at 1139 (“As rights of first refusal are interests in property, the great majority of American jurisdictions have applied the Rule Against Perpetuities to such rights.”); see, e.g., Stuart Kingston, 596 A.2d at 1384; Gore, 867 P.2d at 338; Martin, 348 N.E.2d at 309; Pace, 347 So.2d at 1317; Melcher, 435 P.2d at 114; McHugh, 380 S.E.2d at 874; Smith, 296 S.E.2d at 854. In Florida, however, an option does not create a legal or equitable interest in property. As we explained over fifty years ago, “until an optionee exercises the right to purchase in accordance with the terms of his option he has no estate, either legal or equitable, in the *1287 lands involved.” Gautier v. Lapof, 91 So.2d 324, 326 (Fla.1956). We have since reiterated that principle. See Leon County Educ. Facilities Auth. v. Hartsfield, 698 So.2d 526, 530 (Fla.1997) (“[T]his Court has long held that the status of parties to the ordinary lease with an option to purchase remains that of landlord and tenant until the option is exercised and that the lessee has no equitable interest in the property.”); BancFlorida v. Hayward, 689 So.2d 1052, 1054 (Fla.1997) ( “Under Florida law, an option to purchase property creates neither an equitable interest nor an equitable remedy.”).

As these cases show, Florida law has consistently held that an option does not create an interest in land. Therefore, a right of first refusal—which may or may not ripen into an option depending on whether the owner decides to sell, see, e.g., Pearson, 497 So.2d at 900—cannot create an interest in land, either.

<image001.jpg>
Manuel Farach / Of Counsel - Board Certified in Real Estate Law and Business Litigation by The Florida Bar
Richman Greer P.A.
One Clearlake Centre
Suite 1504
250 Australian Avenue South
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
Office: 561.803.3500
Fax: 561.820.1608
Direct: 561.803.3501
Email: MFarach@richmangreer.com mailto:MFarach@richmangreer.com
http://www.richmangreer.com/
<image002.jpg>
U.S. Treasury Regulation Circular 230 requires us to advise you that written communications issued by us are not intended to be and cannot be relied upon to avoid penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service.
Incoming emails are filtered which may delay receipt. This email is personal to the named recipient(s) and may be privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you received this in error. If so, any review, dissemination, or copying of this email is prohibited. Please immediately notify us by email and delete the original message..

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Gregory Dawson
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 2:41 PM
To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee'
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County

Section 68.03 of the Fla. Real Estate Transactions (Boyer) treatise indicates that an option to purchase real estate is subject to the statute of frauds, citing Minton v. Spivey, 505 So.2d 476 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). Other cases taking that position are McCollum Aviation, Inc. v. CIM Associates, Inc., 446 F. Supp. 511 (S.D. Fla. 1978) and Kamil Gowni & Shenody, Inc. v. BP Corporation North America, Inc., 2003 WL 24051561, 2003 US Dist. LEXIS 26843.

websitehttp://www.edcolaw.com/ | vCardhttp://edcolaw.com/vcards/ECA-vc-gdawson.vcf | maphttp://www.edcolaw.com/contact | emailmailto:gdawson@edcolaw.com
<image003.gif>http://www.edcolaw.com/

The information contained in the preceding message is intended solely for the use of the person(s) to whom it is addressed. The preceding message may contain material that is privileged or protected from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient or the individual responsible for delivery to the intended recipient, (1) do not use, disseminate, forward, or copy the preceding message and (2) please notify sender immediately by e-mail or telephone and destroy the preceding message. Thank you.

Internal Revenue Service regulations require that certain types of written advice include a disclaimer. To the extent the preceding message contains advice relating to a federal tax law issue, unless expressly stated otherwise, the advice is not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by the recipient or any other taxpayer, for the purpose of avoiding federal tax penalties, and was not written to support the promotion or marketing of any transactions or matters.

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Manuel Farach
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 1:57 PM
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County

Arlene,
The case is more complicated than it seems because the exercise of an option (if one does exist in this case) may create an equitable conversion of the oral contract to purchase. Again, this is a little complicated but Florida actually follows the minority rule and holds that an option to purchase is not an interest in real property. If it’s not an interest in real property, then I don’t believe the Statute of Frauds applies (but I’d love for you to show me otherwise)
Thanks

<image001.jpg>
Manuel Farach / Of Counsel - Board Certified in Real Estate Law and Business Litigation by The Florida Bar
Richman Greer P.A.
One Clearlake Centre
Suite 1504
250 Australian Avenue South
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
Office: 561.803.3500
Fax: 561.820.1608
Direct: 561.803.3501
Email: MFarach@richmangreer.com mailto:MFarach@richmangreer.com
http://www.richmangreer.com/
<image002.jpg>
U.S. Treasury Regulation Circular 230 requires us to advise you that written communications issued by us are not intended to be and cannot be relied upon to avoid penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service.
Incoming emails are filtered which may delay receipt. This email is personal to the named recipient(s) and may be privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you received this in error. If so, any review, dissemination, or copying of this email is prohibited. Please immediately notify us by email and delete the original message..

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Arlene C. Udick
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 1:46 PM
To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee'
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County

Dear Manny,

I may be missing something, but I believe the 2 claims are unrelated and that you can go forward with the eviction, notwithstanding the alleged oral option to purchase. It seems that the circuit court case has a statute of frauds issue, and unless the lawyer took some action relying on the option to purchase, the case should be dismissed for failure to state a claim since there is no writing to enforce the option. Arlene

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Manuel Farach
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 12:05 PM
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Subject: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County

Does anyone have case law/practical suggestions for this fact situation?
My client gives notice to leave/files for eviction against his month to month tenant as my client has a buyer for the property. I file for eviction in county court, but tenant (who is a lawyer) files suit in circuit court claiming he has an oral option to purchase the property by matching the price.
Any case law on this? I’m drawing a blank on my research as it appears to be under Rule 1.060 but there are no cases on this narrow issue
Thanks in advance
Manny
<image001.jpg>
Manuel Farach / Of Counsel - Board Certified in Real Estate Law and Business Litigation by The Florida Bar
Richman Greer P.A.
One Clearlake Centre
Suite 1504
250 Australian Avenue South
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
Office: 561.803.3500
Fax: 561.820.1608
Direct: 561.803.3501
Email: MFarach@richmangreer.com mailto:MFarach@richmangreer.com
http://www.richmangreer.com/
<image002.jpg>
U.S. Treasury Regulation Circular 230 requires us to advise you that written communications issued by us are not intended to be and cannot be relied upon to avoid penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service.
Incoming emails are filtered which may delay receipt. This email is personal to the named recipient(s) and may be privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you received this in error. If so, any review, dissemination, or copying of this email is prohibited. Please immediately notify us by email and delete the original message..

[http://www.richmangreer.com/images/logo.gif]

Manuel Farach / Of Counsel - Board Certified in Real Estate Law and Business Litigation by The Florida Bar

Richman Greer P.A.
One Clearlake Centre
Suite 1504
250 Australian Avenue South
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
Office: 561.803.3500
Fax: 561.820.1608
Direct: 561.803.3501
Email: MFarach@richmangreer.com
www.RichmanGreer.com http://www.RichmanGreer.com

[http://www.richmangreer.com/emailsig/meritas.gif]

U.S. Treasury Regulation Circular 230 requires us to advise you that written communications issued by us are not intended to be and cannot be relied upon to avoid penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service.

Incoming emails are filtered which may delay receipt. This email is personal to the named recipient(s) and may be privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you received this in error. If so, any review, dissemination, or copying of this email is prohibited. Please immediately notify us by email and delete the original message..

landten mailing list
landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org mailto:landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org
http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/landten

I don't think that evicting a tenant is considered "debt collection activity" sufficient to come under the FDCPA. Unfortunatley, I'm out of the office and can't point you to a case Sent from my iPad On May 9, 2014, at 1:14 PM, "Cary Sabol" <sabollawoffice@yahoo.com<mailto:sabollawoffice@yahoo.com>> wrote: Personally I don't believe the FDCPA applies to a 3 day notice situation, however, I have been including the FDCPA Notice on any 3 day notice that I prepare for a few years now just in case. Cary Law Offices of Cary P. Sabol P.O. Box 15981 | West Palm Beach | Florida | 33416 Phone: (561) 281-2744 IRS Circular 230 Notice: Pursuant to recently enacted U.S. Treasury Department Regulations, we are now required to advise you that, unless otherwise expressly indicated, any federal tax advice expressed above was neither written nor intended by the sender or this firm to be used and cannot be used by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed under U.S. tax law. If any person uses or refers to any such tax advice in promoting, marketing or recommending a partnership or other entity, investment plan or arrangement to any taxpayer, then the advice should be considered to have been written to support the promotion or marketing by a person other than the sender or this firm of that transaction or matter, and such taxpayer should seek advice based on the taxpayer's particular circumstances from an independent tax advisor. Confidentiality Notice: This electronic mail transmission is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential information belonging to the sender which is protected by the attorney-client privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete the original message. Thank you for your cooperation. On Friday, May 9, 2014 1:07 PM, Leonard Cabral <leonardcabral@lenslaw.com<mailto:leonardcabral@lenslaw.com>> wrote: Maybe. I have attached two cases for guidance. The key in my opinion is if you regularly files evictions. Again in my opinion Harry would qualify as a debt collector under the FDCPA. From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org> [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Beverly Barnett Sent: Friday, May 09, 2014 11:26 AM To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County If a three day notice is signed by the attorney, does it have to comply with the Federal Fair Debt Collection Act Section 809(a) requiring a 30 day notice? From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org> [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Manuel Farach Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2014 11:17 AM To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County I don’t like to file those but yes, we may have to Thanks [http://www.richmangreer.com/images/logo.gif] Manuel Farach / Of Counsel - Board Certified in Real Estate Law and Business Litigation by The Florida Bar Richman Greer P.A. One Clearlake Centre Suite 1504 250 Australian Avenue South West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Office: 561.803.3500 Fax: 561.820.1608 Direct: 561.803.3501 Email: MFarach@richmangreer.com<mailto:MFarach@richmangreer.com> http://www.richmangreer.com/ [http://www.richmangreer.com/emailsig/meritas.gif] U.S. Treasury Regulation Circular 230 requires us to advise you that written communications issued by us are not intended to be and cannot be relied upon to avoid penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service. Incoming emails are filtered which may delay receipt. This email is personal to the named recipient(s) and may be privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you received this in error. If so, any review, dissemination, or copying of this email is prohibited. Please immediately notify us by email and delete the original message.. From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org> [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Leonard Cabral Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 8:51 PM To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County File a 57.107(1) motion and see what the lawyer/tenant does. Remember you must send the motion to the tenant and hold for 21 days before filing with the court. From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org> [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Manuel Farach Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 2:54 PM To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County Greg, I’ll have to read those cases as I was relying on Old Port Cove (copy attached) which reads: [10] Headnote Citing References Where they discuss the rationale, courts adopting the majority view generally conclude that an option or right of first refusal creates an interest in property. Ferrero, 536 A.2d at 1139 (“As rights of first refusal are interests in property, the great majority of American jurisdictions have applied the Rule Against Perpetuities to such rights.”); see, e.g., Stuart Kingston, 596 A.2d at 1384; Gore, 867 P.2d at 338; Martin, 348 N.E.2d at 309; Pace, 347 So.2d at 1317; Melcher, 435 P.2d at 114; McHugh, 380 S.E.2d at 874; Smith, 296 S.E.2d at 854. In Florida, however, an option does not create a legal or equitable interest in property. As we explained over fifty years ago, “until an optionee exercises the right to purchase in accordance with the terms of his option he has no estate, either legal or equitable, in the *1287 lands involved.” Gautier v. Lapof, 91 So.2d 324, 326 (Fla.1956). We have since reiterated that principle. See Leon County Educ. Facilities Auth. v. Hartsfield, 698 So.2d 526, 530 (Fla.1997) (“[T]his Court has long held that the status of parties to the ordinary lease with an option to purchase remains that of landlord and tenant until the option is exercised and that the lessee has no equitable interest in the property.”); BancFlorida v. Hayward, 689 So.2d 1052, 1054 (Fla.1997) ( “Under Florida law, an option to purchase property creates neither an equitable interest nor an equitable remedy.”). As these cases show, Florida law has consistently held that an option does not create an interest in land. Therefore, a right of first refusal—which may or may not ripen into an option depending on whether the owner decides to sell, see, e.g., Pearson, 497 So.2d at 900—cannot create an interest in land, either. <image001.jpg> Manuel Farach / Of Counsel - Board Certified in Real Estate Law and Business Litigation by The Florida Bar Richman Greer P.A. One Clearlake Centre Suite 1504 250 Australian Avenue South West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Office: 561.803.3500 Fax: 561.820.1608 Direct: 561.803.3501 Email: MFarach@richmangreer.com<mailto:MFarach@richmangreer.com> http://www.richmangreer.com/ <image002.jpg> U.S. Treasury Regulation Circular 230 requires us to advise you that written communications issued by us are not intended to be and cannot be relied upon to avoid penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service. Incoming emails are filtered which may delay receipt. This email is personal to the named recipient(s) and may be privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you received this in error. If so, any review, dissemination, or copying of this email is prohibited. Please immediately notify us by email and delete the original message.. From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org> [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Gregory Dawson Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 2:41 PM To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee' Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County Section 68.03 of the Fla. Real Estate Transactions (Boyer) treatise indicates that an option to purchase real estate is subject to the statute of frauds, citing Minton v. Spivey, 505 So.2d 476 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). Other cases taking that position are McCollum Aviation, Inc. v. CIM Associates, Inc., 446 F. Supp. 511 (S.D. Fla. 1978) and Kamil Gowni & Shenody, Inc. v. BP Corporation North America, Inc., 2003 WL 24051561, 2003 US Dist. LEXIS 26843. website<http://www.edcolaw.com/> | vCard<http://edcolaw.com/vcards/ECA-vc-gdawson.vcf> | map<http://www.edcolaw.com/contact> | email<mailto:gdawson@edcolaw.com> <image003.gif><http://www.edcolaw.com/> The information contained in the preceding message is intended solely for the use of the person(s) to whom it is addressed. The preceding message may contain material that is privileged or protected from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient or the individual responsible for delivery to the intended recipient, (1) do not use, disseminate, forward, or copy the preceding message and (2) please notify sender immediately by e-mail or telephone and destroy the preceding message. Thank you. Internal Revenue Service regulations require that certain types of written advice include a disclaimer. To the extent the preceding message contains advice relating to a federal tax law issue, unless expressly stated otherwise, the advice is not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by the recipient or any other taxpayer, for the purpose of avoiding federal tax penalties, and was not written to support the promotion or marketing of any transactions or matters. From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org> [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Manuel Farach Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 1:57 PM To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County Arlene, The case is more complicated than it seems because the exercise of an option (if one does exist in this case) may create an equitable conversion of the oral contract to purchase. Again, this is a little complicated but Florida actually follows the minority rule and holds that an option to purchase is not an interest in real property. If it’s not an interest in real property, then I don’t believe the Statute of Frauds applies (but I’d love for you to show me otherwise) Thanks <image001.jpg> Manuel Farach / Of Counsel - Board Certified in Real Estate Law and Business Litigation by The Florida Bar Richman Greer P.A. One Clearlake Centre Suite 1504 250 Australian Avenue South West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Office: 561.803.3500 Fax: 561.820.1608 Direct: 561.803.3501 Email: MFarach@richmangreer.com<mailto:MFarach@richmangreer.com> http://www.richmangreer.com/ <image002.jpg> U.S. Treasury Regulation Circular 230 requires us to advise you that written communications issued by us are not intended to be and cannot be relied upon to avoid penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service. Incoming emails are filtered which may delay receipt. This email is personal to the named recipient(s) and may be privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you received this in error. If so, any review, dissemination, or copying of this email is prohibited. Please immediately notify us by email and delete the original message.. From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org> [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Arlene C. Udick Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 1:46 PM To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee' Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County Dear Manny, I may be missing something, but I believe the 2 claims are unrelated and that you can go forward with the eviction, notwithstanding the alleged oral option to purchase. It seems that the circuit court case has a statute of frauds issue, and unless the lawyer took some action relying on the option to purchase, the case should be dismissed for failure to state a claim since there is no writing to enforce the option. Arlene From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org> [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Manuel Farach Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 12:05 PM To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee Subject: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County Does anyone have case law/practical suggestions for this fact situation? My client gives notice to leave/files for eviction against his month to month tenant as my client has a buyer for the property. I file for eviction in county court, but tenant (who is a lawyer) files suit in circuit court claiming he has an oral option to purchase the property by matching the price. Any case law on this? I’m drawing a blank on my research as it appears to be under Rule 1.060 but there are no cases on this narrow issue Thanks in advance Manny <image001.jpg> Manuel Farach / Of Counsel - Board Certified in Real Estate Law and Business Litigation by The Florida Bar Richman Greer P.A. One Clearlake Centre Suite 1504 250 Australian Avenue South West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Office: 561.803.3500 Fax: 561.820.1608 Direct: 561.803.3501 Email: MFarach@richmangreer.com<mailto:MFarach@richmangreer.com> http://www.richmangreer.com/ <image002.jpg> U.S. Treasury Regulation Circular 230 requires us to advise you that written communications issued by us are not intended to be and cannot be relied upon to avoid penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service. Incoming emails are filtered which may delay receipt. This email is personal to the named recipient(s) and may be privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you received this in error. If so, any review, dissemination, or copying of this email is prohibited. Please immediately notify us by email and delete the original message.. ________________________________ [http://www.richmangreer.com/images/logo.gif] Manuel Farach / Of Counsel - Board Certified in Real Estate Law and Business Litigation by The Florida Bar Richman Greer P.A. One Clearlake Centre Suite 1504 250 Australian Avenue South West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Office: 561.803.3500 Fax: 561.820.1608 Direct: 561.803.3501 Email: MFarach@richmangreer.com www.RichmanGreer.com<http://www.RichmanGreer.com> [http://www.richmangreer.com/emailsig/meritas.gif] U.S. Treasury Regulation Circular 230 requires us to advise you that written communications issued by us are not intended to be and cannot be relied upon to avoid penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service. Incoming emails are filtered which may delay receipt. This email is personal to the named recipient(s) and may be privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you received this in error. If so, any review, dissemination, or copying of this email is prohibited. Please immediately notify us by email and delete the original message.. ________________________________ _______________________________________________ landten mailing list landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org> http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/landten _______________________________________________ landten mailing list landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org> http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/landten

HH

Harry Heist

Fri, May 9, 2014 5:33 PM

I would NEVER sign a Three Day Notice. I would only have the landlord’s name and address on it. Why have to argue about whether or not you are a debt collector? Why make the notice confusing to the tenant with the 30 day baloney? Never.

Harry

LAW OFFICES OF
HEIST, WEISSE & WOLK P.A.
PH: 1 800 253 8428
FAX: 1 800 367 9038
"Serving the Property Management Professional"
Website: http://www.evict.com/ www.evict.com
Email: mailto:harry@evict.com harry@evict.com

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Heist-Weisse-Wolk-PA/343965575625870

Visit us on Facebook

THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE IS CONFIDENTIAL, ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGED, AND INTENDED FOR THE PERSONS NAMED ABOVE ONLY. ALL OTHER USE, COPYING, OR DISTRIBUTION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Cary Sabol
Sent: Friday, May 09, 2014 1:10 PM
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County

Personally I don't believe the FDCPA applies to a 3 day notice situation, however, I have been including the FDCPA Notice on any 3 day notice that I prepare for a few years now just in case.

Cary

Law Offices of Cary P. Sabol

P.O. Box 15981 | West Palm Beach | Florida | 33416

Phone: (561) 281-2744

IRS Circular 230 Notice: Pursuant to recently enacted U.S. Treasury Department Regulations, we are now required to advise you that, unless otherwise expressly indicated, any federal tax advice expressed above was neither written nor intended by the sender or this firm to be used and cannot be used by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed under U.S. tax law. If any person uses or refers to any such tax advice in promoting, marketing or recommending a partnership or other entity, investment plan or arrangement to any taxpayer, then the advice should be considered to have been written to support the promotion or marketing by a person other than the sender or this firm of that transaction or matter, and such taxpayer should seek advice based on the taxpayer's particular circumstances from an independent tax advisor.

Confidentiality Notice: This electronic mail transmission is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential information belonging to the sender which is protected by the attorney-client privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete the original message. Thank you for your cooperation.

On Friday, May 9, 2014 1:07 PM, Leonard Cabral leonardcabral@lenslaw.com wrote:

Maybe.

I have attached two cases for guidance. The key in my opinion is if you regularly files evictions. Again in my opinion Harry would qualify as a debt collector under the FDCPA.

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Beverly Barnett
Sent: Friday, May 09, 2014 11:26 AM
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County

If a three day notice is signed by the attorney, does it have to comply with the Federal Fair Debt Collection Act Section 809(a) requiring a 30 day notice?

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Manuel Farach
Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2014 11:17 AM
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County

I don’t like to file those but yes, we may have to

Thanks

http://www.richmangreer.com/images/logo.gif

Manuel Farach / Of Counsel - Board Certified in Real Estate Law and Business Litigation by The Florida Bar

Richman Greer P.A.
One Clearlake Centre
Suite 1504
250 Australian Avenue South
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
Office: 561.803.3500
Fax: 561.820.1608
Direct: 561.803.3501
Email: MFarach@richmangreer.com
http://www.richmangreer.com/

http://www.richmangreer.com/emailsig/meritas.gif

U.S. Treasury Regulation Circular 230 requires us to advise you that written communications issued by us are not intended to be and cannot be relied upon to avoid penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service.

Incoming emails are filtered which may delay receipt. This email is personal to the named recipient(s) and may be privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you received this in error. If so, any review, dissemination, or copying of this email is prohibited. Please immediately notify us by email and delete the original message..

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Leonard Cabral
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 8:51 PM
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County

File a 57.107(1) motion and see what the lawyer/tenant does. Remember you must send the motion to the tenant and hold for 21 days before filing with the court.

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Manuel Farach
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 2:54 PM
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County

Greg,

I’ll have to read those cases as I was relying on Old Port Cove (copy attached) which reads:

[10] Headnote Citing References Where they discuss the rationale, courts adopting the majority view generally conclude that an option or right of first refusal creates an interest in property. Ferrero, 536 A.2d at 1139 (“As rights of first refusal are interests in property, the great majority of American jurisdictions have applied the Rule Against Perpetuities to such rights.”); see, e.g., Stuart Kingston, 596 A.2d at 1384; Gore, 867 P.2d at 338; Martin, 348 N.E.2d at 309; Pace, 347 So.2d at 1317; Melcher, 435 P.2d at 114; McHugh, 380 S.E.2d at 874; Smith, 296 S.E.2d at 854. In Florida, however, an option does not create a legal or equitable interest in property. As we explained over fifty years ago, “until an optionee exercises the right to purchase in accordance with the terms of his option he has no estate, either legal or equitable, in the *1287 lands involved.” Gautier v. Lapof, 91 So.2d 324, 326 (Fla.1956). We have since reiterated that principle. See Leon County Educ. Facilities Auth. v. Hartsfield, 698 So.2d 526, 530 (Fla.1997) (“[T]his Court has long held that the status of parties to the ordinary lease with an option to purchase remains that of landlord and tenant until the option is exercised and that the lessee has no equitable interest in the property.”); BancFlorida v. Hayward, 689 So.2d 1052, 1054 (Fla.1997) ( “Under Florida law, an option to purchase property creates neither an equitable interest nor an equitable remedy.”).

As these cases show, Florida law has consistently held that an option does not create an interest in land. Therefore, a right of first refusal—which may or may not ripen into an option depending on whether the owner decides to sell, see, e.g., Pearson, 497 So.2d at 900—cannot create an interest in land, either.

Image removed by sender.

Manuel Farach / Of Counsel - Board Certified in Real Estate Law and Business Litigation by The Florida Bar

Richman Greer P.A.
One Clearlake Centre
Suite 1504
250 Australian Avenue South
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
Office: 561.803.3500
Fax: 561.820.1608
Direct: 561.803.3501
Email: MFarach@richmangreer.com
http://www.richmangreer.com/

Image removed by sender.

U.S. Treasury Regulation Circular 230 requires us to advise you that written communications issued by us are not intended to be and cannot be relied upon to avoid penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service.

Incoming emails are filtered which may delay receipt. This email is personal to the named recipient(s) and may be privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you received this in error. If so, any review, dissemination, or copying of this email is prohibited. Please immediately notify us by email and delete the original message..

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Gregory Dawson
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 2:41 PM
To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee'
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County

Section 68.03 of the Fla. Real Estate Transactions (Boyer) treatise indicates that an option to purchase real estate is subject to the statute of frauds, citing Minton v. Spivey, 505 So.2d 476 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). Other cases taking that position are McCollum Aviation, Inc. v. CIM Associates, Inc., 446 F. Supp. 511 (S.D. Fla. 1978) and Kamil Gowni & Shenody, Inc. v. BP Corporation North America, Inc., 2003 WL 24051561, 2003 US Dist. LEXIS 26843.

http://www.edcolaw.com/ website | http://edcolaw.com/vcards/ECA-vc-gdawson.vcf vCard | http://www.edcolaw.com/contact map | mailto:gdawson@edcolaw.com email

http://www.edcolaw.com/ Description: http://edcolaw.com/vcards/ECA-sig3-gdawson.gif

The information contained in the preceding message is intended solely for the use of the person(s) to whom it is addressed. The preceding message may contain material that is privileged or protected from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient or the individual responsible for delivery to the intended recipient, (1) do not use, disseminate, forward, or copy the preceding message and (2) please notify sender immediately by e-mail or telephone and destroy the preceding message. Thank you.

Internal Revenue Service regulations require that certain types of written advice include a disclaimer. To the extent the preceding message contains advice relating to a federal tax law issue, unless expressly stated otherwise, the advice is not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by the recipient or any other taxpayer, for the purpose of avoiding federal tax penalties, and was not written to support the promotion or marketing of any transactions or matters.

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Manuel Farach
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 1:57 PM
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County

Arlene,

The case is more complicated than it seems because the exercise of an option (if one does exist in this case) may create an equitable conversion of the oral contract to purchase. Again, this is a little complicated but Florida actually follows the minority rule and holds that an option to purchase is not an interest in real property. If it’s not an interest in real property, then I don’t believe the Statute of Frauds applies (but I’d love for you to show me otherwise)

Thanks

Image removed by sender.

Manuel Farach / Of Counsel - Board Certified in Real Estate Law and Business Litigation by The Florida Bar

Richman Greer P.A.
One Clearlake Centre
Suite 1504
250 Australian Avenue South
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
Office: 561.803.3500
Fax: 561.820.1608
Direct: 561.803.3501
Email: MFarach@richmangreer.com
http://www.richmangreer.com/

Image removed by sender.

U.S. Treasury Regulation Circular 230 requires us to advise you that written communications issued by us are not intended to be and cannot be relied upon to avoid penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service.

Incoming emails are filtered which may delay receipt. This email is personal to the named recipient(s) and may be privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you received this in error. If so, any review, dissemination, or copying of this email is prohibited. Please immediately notify us by email and delete the original message..

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Arlene C. Udick
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 1:46 PM
To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee'
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County

Dear Manny,

I may be missing something, but I believe the 2 claims are unrelated and that you can go forward with the eviction, notwithstanding the alleged oral option to purchase. It seems that the circuit court case has a statute of frauds issue, and unless the lawyer took some action relying on the option to purchase, the case should be dismissed for failure to state a claim since there is no writing to enforce the option. Arlene

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Manuel Farach
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 12:05 PM
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Subject: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County

Does anyone have case law/practical suggestions for this fact situation?

My client gives notice to leave/files for eviction against his month to month tenant as my client has a buyer for the property. I file for eviction in county court, but tenant (who is a lawyer) files suit in circuit court claiming he has an oral option to purchase the property by matching the price.

Any case law on this? I’m drawing a blank on my research as it appears to be under Rule 1.060 but there are no cases on this narrow issue

Thanks in advance

Manny

Image removed by sender.

Manuel Farach / Of Counsel - Board Certified in Real Estate Law and Business Litigation by The Florida Bar

Richman Greer P.A.
One Clearlake Centre
Suite 1504
250 Australian Avenue South
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
Office: 561.803.3500
Fax: 561.820.1608
Direct: 561.803.3501
Email: MFarach@richmangreer.com
http://www.richmangreer.com/

Image removed by sender.

U.S. Treasury Regulation Circular 230 requires us to advise you that written communications issued by us are not intended to be and cannot be relied upon to avoid penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service.

Incoming emails are filtered which may delay receipt. This email is personal to the named recipient(s) and may be privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you received this in error. If so, any review, dissemination, or copying of this email is prohibited. Please immediately notify us by email and delete the original message..

landten mailing list
landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org
http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/landten

I would NEVER sign a Three Day Notice. I would only have the landlord’s name and address on it. Why have to argue about whether or not you are a debt collector? Why make the notice confusing to the tenant with the 30 day baloney? Never. Harry LAW OFFICES OF HEIST, WEISSE & WOLK P.A. PH: 1 800 253 8428 FAX: 1 800 367 9038 "Serving the Property Management Professional" Website: <http://www.evict.com/> www.evict.com Email: <mailto:harry@evict.com> harry@evict.com <https://www.facebook.com/pages/Heist-Weisse-Wolk-PA/343965575625870> Visit us on Facebook THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE IS CONFIDENTIAL, ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGED, AND INTENDED FOR THE PERSONS NAMED ABOVE ONLY. ALL OTHER USE, COPYING, OR DISTRIBUTION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Cary Sabol Sent: Friday, May 09, 2014 1:10 PM To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County Personally I don't believe the FDCPA applies to a 3 day notice situation, however, I have been including the FDCPA Notice on any 3 day notice that I prepare for a few years now just in case. Cary Law Offices of Cary P. Sabol P.O. Box 15981 | West Palm Beach | Florida | 33416 Phone: (561) 281-2744 IRS Circular 230 Notice: Pursuant to recently enacted U.S. Treasury Department Regulations, we are now required to advise you that, unless otherwise expressly indicated, any federal tax advice expressed above was neither written nor intended by the sender or this firm to be used and cannot be used by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed under U.S. tax law. If any person uses or refers to any such tax advice in promoting, marketing or recommending a partnership or other entity, investment plan or arrangement to any taxpayer, then the advice should be considered to have been written to support the promotion or marketing by a person other than the sender or this firm of that transaction or matter, and such taxpayer should seek advice based on the taxpayer's particular circumstances from an independent tax advisor. Confidentiality Notice: This electronic mail transmission is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential information belonging to the sender which is protected by the attorney-client privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete the original message. Thank you for your cooperation. On Friday, May 9, 2014 1:07 PM, Leonard Cabral <leonardcabral@lenslaw.com> wrote: Maybe. I have attached two cases for guidance. The key in my opinion is if you regularly files evictions. Again in my opinion Harry would qualify as a debt collector under the FDCPA. From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Beverly Barnett Sent: Friday, May 09, 2014 11:26 AM To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County If a three day notice is signed by the attorney, does it have to comply with the Federal Fair Debt Collection Act Section 809(a) requiring a 30 day notice? From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Manuel Farach Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2014 11:17 AM To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County I don’t like to file those but yes, we may have to Thanks <http://www.richmangreer.com/images/logo.gif> Manuel Farach / Of Counsel - Board Certified in Real Estate Law and Business Litigation by The Florida Bar Richman Greer P.A. One Clearlake Centre Suite 1504 250 Australian Avenue South West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Office: 561.803.3500 Fax: 561.820.1608 Direct: 561.803.3501 Email: MFarach@richmangreer.com http://www.richmangreer.com/ <http://www.richmangreer.com/emailsig/meritas.gif> U.S. Treasury Regulation Circular 230 requires us to advise you that written communications issued by us are not intended to be and cannot be relied upon to avoid penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service. Incoming emails are filtered which may delay receipt. This email is personal to the named recipient(s) and may be privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you received this in error. If so, any review, dissemination, or copying of this email is prohibited. Please immediately notify us by email and delete the original message.. From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Leonard Cabral Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 8:51 PM To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County File a 57.107(1) motion and see what the lawyer/tenant does. Remember you must send the motion to the tenant and hold for 21 days before filing with the court. From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Manuel Farach Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 2:54 PM To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County Greg, I’ll have to read those cases as I was relying on Old Port Cove (copy attached) which reads: [10] Headnote Citing References Where they discuss the rationale, courts adopting the majority view generally conclude that an option or right of first refusal creates an interest in property. Ferrero, 536 A.2d at 1139 (“As rights of first refusal are interests in property, the great majority of American jurisdictions have applied the Rule Against Perpetuities to such rights.”); see, e.g., Stuart Kingston, 596 A.2d at 1384; Gore, 867 P.2d at 338; Martin, 348 N.E.2d at 309; Pace, 347 So.2d at 1317; Melcher, 435 P.2d at 114; McHugh, 380 S.E.2d at 874; Smith, 296 S.E.2d at 854. In Florida, however, an option does not create a legal or equitable interest in property. As we explained over fifty years ago, “until an optionee exercises the right to purchase in accordance with the terms of his option he has no estate, either legal or equitable, in the *1287 lands involved.” Gautier v. Lapof, 91 So.2d 324, 326 (Fla.1956). We have since reiterated that principle. See Leon County Educ. Facilities Auth. v. Hartsfield, 698 So.2d 526, 530 (Fla.1997) (“[T]his Court has long held that the status of parties to the ordinary lease with an option to purchase remains that of landlord and tenant until the option is exercised and that the lessee has no equitable interest in the property.”); BancFlorida v. Hayward, 689 So.2d 1052, 1054 (Fla.1997) ( “Under Florida law, an option to purchase property creates neither an equitable interest nor an equitable remedy.”). As these cases show, Florida law has consistently held that an option does not create an interest in land. Therefore, a right of first refusal—which may or may not ripen into an option depending on whether the owner decides to sell, see, e.g., Pearson, 497 So.2d at 900—cannot create an interest in land, either. Image removed by sender. Manuel Farach / Of Counsel - Board Certified in Real Estate Law and Business Litigation by The Florida Bar Richman Greer P.A. One Clearlake Centre Suite 1504 250 Australian Avenue South West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Office: 561.803.3500 Fax: 561.820.1608 Direct: 561.803.3501 Email: MFarach@richmangreer.com http://www.richmangreer.com/ Image removed by sender. U.S. Treasury Regulation Circular 230 requires us to advise you that written communications issued by us are not intended to be and cannot be relied upon to avoid penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service. Incoming emails are filtered which may delay receipt. This email is personal to the named recipient(s) and may be privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you received this in error. If so, any review, dissemination, or copying of this email is prohibited. Please immediately notify us by email and delete the original message.. From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Gregory Dawson Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 2:41 PM To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee' Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County Section 68.03 of the Fla. Real Estate Transactions (Boyer) treatise indicates that an option to purchase real estate is subject to the statute of frauds, citing Minton v. Spivey, 505 So.2d 476 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). Other cases taking that position are McCollum Aviation, Inc. v. CIM Associates, Inc., 446 F. Supp. 511 (S.D. Fla. 1978) and Kamil Gowni & Shenody, Inc. v. BP Corporation North America, Inc., 2003 WL 24051561, 2003 US Dist. LEXIS 26843. <http://www.edcolaw.com/> website | <http://edcolaw.com/vcards/ECA-vc-gdawson.vcf> vCard | <http://www.edcolaw.com/contact> map | <mailto:gdawson@edcolaw.com> email <http://www.edcolaw.com/> Description: http://edcolaw.com/vcards/ECA-sig3-gdawson.gif The information contained in the preceding message is intended solely for the use of the person(s) to whom it is addressed. The preceding message may contain material that is privileged or protected from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient or the individual responsible for delivery to the intended recipient, (1) do not use, disseminate, forward, or copy the preceding message and (2) please notify sender immediately by e-mail or telephone and destroy the preceding message. Thank you. Internal Revenue Service regulations require that certain types of written advice include a disclaimer. To the extent the preceding message contains advice relating to a federal tax law issue, unless expressly stated otherwise, the advice is not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by the recipient or any other taxpayer, for the purpose of avoiding federal tax penalties, and was not written to support the promotion or marketing of any transactions or matters. From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Manuel Farach Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 1:57 PM To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County Arlene, The case is more complicated than it seems because the exercise of an option (if one does exist in this case) may create an equitable conversion of the oral contract to purchase. Again, this is a little complicated but Florida actually follows the minority rule and holds that an option to purchase is not an interest in real property. If it’s not an interest in real property, then I don’t believe the Statute of Frauds applies (but I’d love for you to show me otherwise) Thanks Image removed by sender. Manuel Farach / Of Counsel - Board Certified in Real Estate Law and Business Litigation by The Florida Bar Richman Greer P.A. One Clearlake Centre Suite 1504 250 Australian Avenue South West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Office: 561.803.3500 Fax: 561.820.1608 Direct: 561.803.3501 Email: MFarach@richmangreer.com http://www.richmangreer.com/ Image removed by sender. U.S. Treasury Regulation Circular 230 requires us to advise you that written communications issued by us are not intended to be and cannot be relied upon to avoid penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service. Incoming emails are filtered which may delay receipt. This email is personal to the named recipient(s) and may be privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you received this in error. If so, any review, dissemination, or copying of this email is prohibited. Please immediately notify us by email and delete the original message.. From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Arlene C. Udick Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 1:46 PM To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee' Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County Dear Manny, I may be missing something, but I believe the 2 claims are unrelated and that you can go forward with the eviction, notwithstanding the alleged oral option to purchase. It seems that the circuit court case has a statute of frauds issue, and unless the lawyer took some action relying on the option to purchase, the case should be dismissed for failure to state a claim since there is no writing to enforce the option. Arlene From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Manuel Farach Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 12:05 PM To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee Subject: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County Does anyone have case law/practical suggestions for this fact situation? My client gives notice to leave/files for eviction against his month to month tenant as my client has a buyer for the property. I file for eviction in county court, but tenant (who is a lawyer) files suit in circuit court claiming he has an oral option to purchase the property by matching the price. Any case law on this? I’m drawing a blank on my research as it appears to be under Rule 1.060 but there are no cases on this narrow issue Thanks in advance Manny Image removed by sender. Manuel Farach / Of Counsel - Board Certified in Real Estate Law and Business Litigation by The Florida Bar Richman Greer P.A. One Clearlake Centre Suite 1504 250 Australian Avenue South West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Office: 561.803.3500 Fax: 561.820.1608 Direct: 561.803.3501 Email: MFarach@richmangreer.com http://www.richmangreer.com/ Image removed by sender. U.S. Treasury Regulation Circular 230 requires us to advise you that written communications issued by us are not intended to be and cannot be relied upon to avoid penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service. Incoming emails are filtered which may delay receipt. This email is personal to the named recipient(s) and may be privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you received this in error. If so, any review, dissemination, or copying of this email is prohibited. Please immediately notify us by email and delete the original message.. _______________________________________________ landten mailing list landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/landten

CH

Chuck Hoskin

Fri, May 9, 2014 5:49 PM

Harry has the best advice. Avoid the problem altogether by having the landlord’s name and address (and phone number) on it. You may be correct that you are a not a debt collector, but you may have to prove it in court.

In addition to the 30 day validation notice, FDCPA requires the conspicuous “Miranda Warning” - this is an attempt to collect a debt, etc...

If you look closely at the statute (83.56), the substantially sufficient form does not appear to require a signature. Therefore, just put the landlord’s name, address, and phone number on the notice.

This e-mail message and all attachments transmitted with it may contain legally privileged and confidential information intended solely for the use of the addressee. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any reading, dissemination, distribution, copying, or other use of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone (850-433-6581) or by electronic mail (choskin@esclaw.com mailto:choskin@esclaw.com) and then delete this message and all copies and backups thereof. Thank you.

Charles P. Hoskin
Direct Dial: 850-444-3881
Fax: 850-434-7163

[cid:image005.png@01CF6B85.00DC8C70]

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Harry Heist
Sent: Friday, May 09, 2014 12:33 PM
To: 'Cary Sabol'; 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee'
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County

I would NEVER sign a Three Day Notice. I would only have the landlord’s name and address on it. Why have to argue about whether or not you are a debt collector? Why make the notice confusing to the tenant with the 30 day baloney? Never.

Harry

LAW OFFICES OF
HEIST, WEISSE & WOLK P.A.
PH: 1 800 253 8428
FAX: 1 800 367 9038
"Serving the Property Management Professional"
Website: www.evict.com http://www.evict.com/
Email: harry@evict.com mailto:harry@evict.com
[cid:image006.png@01CF6B85.00DC8C70]https://www.facebook.com/pages/Heist-Weisse-Wolk-PA/343965575625870

Visit us on Facebook

THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE IS CONFIDENTIAL, ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGED, AND INTENDED FOR THE PERSONS NAMED ABOVE ONLY. ALL OTHER USE, COPYING, OR DISTRIBUTION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Cary Sabol
Sent: Friday, May 09, 2014 1:10 PM
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County

Personally I don't believe the FDCPA applies to a 3 day notice situation, however, I have been including the FDCPA Notice on any 3 day notice that I prepare for a few years now just in case.

Cary
Law Offices of Cary P. Sabol
P.O. Box 15981 | West Palm Beach | Florida | 33416
Phone: (561) 281-2744
IRS Circular 230 Notice: Pursuant to recently enacted U.S. Treasury Department Regulations, we are now required to advise you that, unless otherwise expressly indicated, any federal tax advice expressed above was neither written nor intended by the sender or this firm to be used and cannot be used by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed under U.S. tax law. If any person uses or refers to any such tax advice in promoting, marketing or recommending a partnership or other entity, investment plan or arrangement to any taxpayer, then the advice should be considered to have been written to support the promotion or marketing by a person other than the sender or this firm of that transaction or matter, and such taxpayer should seek advice based on the taxpayer's particular circumstances from an independent tax advisor.

Confidentiality Notice: This electronic mail transmission is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential information belonging to the sender which is protected by the attorney-client privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete the original message. Thank you for your cooperation.
On Friday, May 9, 2014 1:07 PM, Leonard Cabral <leonardcabral@lenslaw.com mailto:leonardcabral@lenslaw.com> wrote:
Maybe.
I have attached two cases for guidance. The key in my opinion is if you regularly files evictions. Again in my opinion Harry would qualify as a debt collector under the FDCPA.

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org]mailto:[mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Beverly Barnett
Sent: Friday, May 09, 2014 11:26 AM
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County

If a three day notice is signed by the attorney, does it have to comply with the Federal Fair Debt Collection Act Section 809(a) requiring a 30 day notice?

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Manuel Farach
Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2014 11:17 AM
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County

I don’t like to file those but yes, we may have to
Thanks

[http://www.richmangreer.com/images/logo.gif]
Manuel Farach / Of Counsel - Board Certified in Real Estate Law and Business Litigation by The Florida Bar
Richman Greer P.A.
One Clearlake Centre
Suite 1504
250 Australian Avenue South
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
Office: 561.803.3500
Fax: 561.820.1608
Direct: 561.803.3501
Email: MFarach@richmangreer.com mailto:MFarach@richmangreer.com
http://www.richmangreer.com/
[http://www.richmangreer.com/emailsig/meritas.gif]
U.S. Treasury Regulation Circular 230 requires us to advise you that written communications issued by us are not intended to be and cannot be relied upon to avoid penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service.
Incoming emails are filtered which may delay receipt. This email is personal to the named recipient(s) and may be privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you received this in error. If so, any review, dissemination, or copying of this email is prohibited. Please immediately notify us by email and delete the original message..

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Leonard Cabral
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 8:51 PM
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County

File a 57.107(1) motion and see what the lawyer/tenant does. Remember you must send the motion to the tenant and hold for 21 days before filing with the court.

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Manuel Farach
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 2:54 PM
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County

Greg,
I’ll have to read those cases as I was relying on Old Port Cove (copy attached) which reads:

[10] Headnote Citing References Where they discuss the rationale, courts adopting the majority view generally conclude that an option or right of first refusal creates an interest in property. Ferrero, 536 A.2d at 1139 (“As rights of first refusal are interests in property, the great majority of American jurisdictions have applied the Rule Against Perpetuities to such rights.”); see, e.g., Stuart Kingston, 596 A.2d at 1384; Gore, 867 P.2d at 338; Martin, 348 N.E.2d at 309; Pace, 347 So.2d at 1317; Melcher, 435 P.2d at 114; McHugh, 380 S.E.2d at 874; Smith, 296 S.E.2d at 854. In Florida, however, an option does not create a legal or equitable interest in property. As we explained over fifty years ago, “until an optionee exercises the right to purchase in accordance with the terms of his option he has no estate, either legal or equitable, in the *1287 lands involved.” Gautier v. Lapof, 91 So.2d 324, 326 (Fla.1956). We have since reiterated that principle. See Leon County Educ. Facilities Auth. v. Hartsfield, 698 So.2d 526, 530 (Fla.1997) (“[T]his Court has long held that the status of parties to the ordinary lease with an option to purchase remains that of landlord and tenant until the option is exercised and that the lessee has no equitable interest in the property.”); BancFlorida v. Hayward, 689 So.2d 1052, 1054 (Fla.1997) ( “Under Florida law, an option to purchase property creates neither an equitable interest nor an equitable remedy.”).

As these cases show, Florida law has consistently held that an option does not create an interest in land. Therefore, a right of first refusal—which may or may not ripen into an option depending on whether the owner decides to sell, see, e.g., Pearson, 497 So.2d at 900—cannot create an interest in land, either.

[cid:image007.jpg@01CF6B85.00DC8C70]
Manuel Farach / Of Counsel - Board Certified in Real Estate Law and Business Litigation by The Florida Bar
Richman Greer P.A.
One Clearlake Centre
Suite 1504
250 Australian Avenue South
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
Office: 561.803.3500
Fax: 561.820.1608
Direct: 561.803.3501
Email: MFarach@richmangreer.com mailto:MFarach@richmangreer.com
http://www.richmangreer.com/
[cid:image008.jpg@01CF6B85.00DC8C70]
U.S. Treasury Regulation Circular 230 requires us to advise you that written communications issued by us are not intended to be and cannot be relied upon to avoid penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service.
Incoming emails are filtered which may delay receipt. This email is personal to the named recipient(s) and may be privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you received this in error. If so, any review, dissemination, or copying of this email is prohibited. Please immediately notify us by email and delete the original message..

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Gregory Dawson
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 2:41 PM
To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee'
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County

Section 68.03 of the Fla. Real Estate Transactions (Boyer) treatise indicates that an option to purchase real estate is subject to the statute of frauds, citing Minton v. Spivey, 505 So.2d 476 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). Other cases taking that position are McCollum Aviation, Inc. v. CIM Associates, Inc., 446 F. Supp. 511 (S.D. Fla. 1978) and Kamil Gowni & Shenody, Inc. v. BP Corporation North America, Inc., 2003 WL 24051561, 2003 US Dist. LEXIS 26843.

websitehttp://www.edcolaw.com/ | vCardhttp://edcolaw.com/vcards/ECA-vc-gdawson.vcf | maphttp://www.edcolaw.com/contact | emailmailto:gdawson@edcolaw.com
[cid:image009.gif@01CF6B85.00DC8C70]http://www.edcolaw.com/

The information contained in the preceding message is intended solely for the use of the person(s) to whom it is addressed. The preceding message may contain material that is privileged or protected from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient or the individual responsible for delivery to the intended recipient, (1) do not use, disseminate, forward, or copy the preceding message and (2) please notify sender immediately by e-mail or telephone and destroy the preceding message. Thank you.

Internal Revenue Service regulations require that certain types of written advice include a disclaimer. To the extent the preceding message contains advice relating to a federal tax law issue, unless expressly stated otherwise, the advice is not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by the recipient or any other taxpayer, for the purpose of avoiding federal tax penalties, and was not written to support the promotion or marketing of any transactions or matters.

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Manuel Farach
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 1:57 PM
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County

Arlene,
The case is more complicated than it seems because the exercise of an option (if one does exist in this case) may create an equitable conversion of the oral contract to purchase. Again, this is a little complicated but Florida actually follows the minority rule and holds that an option to purchase is not an interest in real property. If it’s not an interest in real property, then I don’t believe the Statute of Frauds applies (but I’d love for you to show me otherwise)
Thanks

[cid:image007.jpg@01CF6B85.00DC8C70]
Manuel Farach / Of Counsel - Board Certified in Real Estate Law and Business Litigation by The Florida Bar
Richman Greer P.A.
One Clearlake Centre
Suite 1504
250 Australian Avenue South
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
Office: 561.803.3500
Fax: 561.820.1608
Direct: 561.803.3501
Email: MFarach@richmangreer.com mailto:MFarach@richmangreer.com
http://www.richmangreer.com/
[cid:image008.jpg@01CF6B85.00DC8C70]
U.S. Treasury Regulation Circular 230 requires us to advise you that written communications issued by us are not intended to be and cannot be relied upon to avoid penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service.
Incoming emails are filtered which may delay receipt. This email is personal to the named recipient(s) and may be privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you received this in error. If so, any review, dissemination, or copying of this email is prohibited. Please immediately notify us by email and delete the original message..

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Arlene C. Udick
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 1:46 PM
To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee'
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County

Dear Manny,

I may be missing something, but I believe the 2 claims are unrelated and that you can go forward with the eviction, notwithstanding the alleged oral option to purchase. It seems that the circuit court case has a statute of frauds issue, and unless the lawyer took some action relying on the option to purchase, the case should be dismissed for failure to state a claim since there is no writing to enforce the option. Arlene

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Manuel Farach
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 12:05 PM
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Subject: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County

Does anyone have case law/practical suggestions for this fact situation?
My client gives notice to leave/files for eviction against his month to month tenant as my client has a buyer for the property. I file for eviction in county court, but tenant (who is a lawyer) files suit in circuit court claiming he has an oral option to purchase the property by matching the price.
Any case law on this? I’m drawing a blank on my research as it appears to be under Rule 1.060 but there are no cases on this narrow issue
Thanks in advance
Manny
[cid:image007.jpg@01CF6B85.00DC8C70]
Manuel Farach / Of Counsel - Board Certified in Real Estate Law and Business Litigation by The Florida Bar
Richman Greer P.A.
One Clearlake Centre
Suite 1504
250 Australian Avenue South
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
Office: 561.803.3500
Fax: 561.820.1608
Direct: 561.803.3501
Email: MFarach@richmangreer.com mailto:MFarach@richmangreer.com
http://www.richmangreer.com/
[cid:image008.jpg@01CF6B85.00DC8C70]
U.S. Treasury Regulation Circular 230 requires us to advise you that written communications issued by us are not intended to be and cannot be relied upon to avoid penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service.
Incoming emails are filtered which may delay receipt. This email is personal to the named recipient(s) and may be privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you received this in error. If so, any review, dissemination, or copying of this email is prohibited. Please immediately notify us by email and delete the original message..

landten mailing list
landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org mailto:landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org
http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/landten

Harry has the best advice. Avoid the problem altogether by having the landlord’s name and address (and phone number) on it. You may be correct that you are a not a debt collector, but you may have to prove it in court. In addition to the 30 day validation notice, FDCPA requires the conspicuous “Miranda Warning” - this is an attempt to collect a debt, etc... If you look closely at the statute (83.56), the substantially sufficient form does not appear to require a signature. Therefore, just put the landlord’s name, address, and phone number on the notice. This e-mail message and all attachments transmitted with it may contain legally privileged and confidential information intended solely for the use of the addressee. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any reading, dissemination, distribution, copying, or other use of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone (850-433-6581) or by electronic mail (choskin@esclaw.com<mailto:choskin@esclaw.com>) and then delete this message and all copies and backups thereof. Thank you. Charles P. Hoskin Direct Dial: 850-444-3881 Fax: 850-434-7163 [cid:image005.png@01CF6B85.00DC8C70] From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Harry Heist Sent: Friday, May 09, 2014 12:33 PM To: 'Cary Sabol'; 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee' Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County I would NEVER sign a Three Day Notice. I would only have the landlord’s name and address on it. Why have to argue about whether or not you are a debt collector? Why make the notice confusing to the tenant with the 30 day baloney? Never. Harry LAW OFFICES OF HEIST, WEISSE & WOLK P.A. PH: 1 800 253 8428 FAX: 1 800 367 9038 "Serving the Property Management Professional" Website: www.evict.com<http://www.evict.com/> Email: harry@evict.com<mailto:harry@evict.com> [cid:image006.png@01CF6B85.00DC8C70]<https://www.facebook.com/pages/Heist-Weisse-Wolk-PA/343965575625870> Visit us on Facebook THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE IS CONFIDENTIAL, ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGED, AND INTENDED FOR THE PERSONS NAMED ABOVE ONLY. ALL OTHER USE, COPYING, OR DISTRIBUTION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org> [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Cary Sabol Sent: Friday, May 09, 2014 1:10 PM To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County Personally I don't believe the FDCPA applies to a 3 day notice situation, however, I have been including the FDCPA Notice on any 3 day notice that I prepare for a few years now just in case. Cary Law Offices of Cary P. Sabol P.O. Box 15981 | West Palm Beach | Florida | 33416 Phone: (561) 281-2744 IRS Circular 230 Notice: Pursuant to recently enacted U.S. Treasury Department Regulations, we are now required to advise you that, unless otherwise expressly indicated, any federal tax advice expressed above was neither written nor intended by the sender or this firm to be used and cannot be used by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed under U.S. tax law. If any person uses or refers to any such tax advice in promoting, marketing or recommending a partnership or other entity, investment plan or arrangement to any taxpayer, then the advice should be considered to have been written to support the promotion or marketing by a person other than the sender or this firm of that transaction or matter, and such taxpayer should seek advice based on the taxpayer's particular circumstances from an independent tax advisor. Confidentiality Notice: This electronic mail transmission is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential information belonging to the sender which is protected by the attorney-client privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete the original message. Thank you for your cooperation. On Friday, May 9, 2014 1:07 PM, Leonard Cabral <leonardcabral@lenslaw.com<mailto:leonardcabral@lenslaw.com>> wrote: Maybe. I have attached two cases for guidance. The key in my opinion is if you regularly files evictions. Again in my opinion Harry would qualify as a debt collector under the FDCPA. From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org> [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org]<mailto:[mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org]> On Behalf Of Beverly Barnett Sent: Friday, May 09, 2014 11:26 AM To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County If a three day notice is signed by the attorney, does it have to comply with the Federal Fair Debt Collection Act Section 809(a) requiring a 30 day notice? From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org> [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Manuel Farach Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2014 11:17 AM To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County I don’t like to file those but yes, we may have to Thanks [http://www.richmangreer.com/images/logo.gif] Manuel Farach / Of Counsel - Board Certified in Real Estate Law and Business Litigation by The Florida Bar Richman Greer P.A. One Clearlake Centre Suite 1504 250 Australian Avenue South West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Office: 561.803.3500 Fax: 561.820.1608 Direct: 561.803.3501 Email: MFarach@richmangreer.com<mailto:MFarach@richmangreer.com> http://www.richmangreer.com/ [http://www.richmangreer.com/emailsig/meritas.gif] U.S. Treasury Regulation Circular 230 requires us to advise you that written communications issued by us are not intended to be and cannot be relied upon to avoid penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service. Incoming emails are filtered which may delay receipt. This email is personal to the named recipient(s) and may be privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you received this in error. If so, any review, dissemination, or copying of this email is prohibited. Please immediately notify us by email and delete the original message.. From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org> [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Leonard Cabral Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 8:51 PM To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County File a 57.107(1) motion and see what the lawyer/tenant does. Remember you must send the motion to the tenant and hold for 21 days before filing with the court. From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org> [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Manuel Farach Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 2:54 PM To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County Greg, I’ll have to read those cases as I was relying on Old Port Cove (copy attached) which reads: [10] Headnote Citing References Where they discuss the rationale, courts adopting the majority view generally conclude that an option or right of first refusal creates an interest in property. Ferrero, 536 A.2d at 1139 (“As rights of first refusal are interests in property, the great majority of American jurisdictions have applied the Rule Against Perpetuities to such rights.”); see, e.g., Stuart Kingston, 596 A.2d at 1384; Gore, 867 P.2d at 338; Martin, 348 N.E.2d at 309; Pace, 347 So.2d at 1317; Melcher, 435 P.2d at 114; McHugh, 380 S.E.2d at 874; Smith, 296 S.E.2d at 854. In Florida, however, an option does not create a legal or equitable interest in property. As we explained over fifty years ago, “until an optionee exercises the right to purchase in accordance with the terms of his option he has no estate, either legal or equitable, in the *1287 lands involved.” Gautier v. Lapof, 91 So.2d 324, 326 (Fla.1956). We have since reiterated that principle. See Leon County Educ. Facilities Auth. v. Hartsfield, 698 So.2d 526, 530 (Fla.1997) (“[T]his Court has long held that the status of parties to the ordinary lease with an option to purchase remains that of landlord and tenant until the option is exercised and that the lessee has no equitable interest in the property.”); BancFlorida v. Hayward, 689 So.2d 1052, 1054 (Fla.1997) ( “Under Florida law, an option to purchase property creates neither an equitable interest nor an equitable remedy.”). As these cases show, Florida law has consistently held that an option does not create an interest in land. Therefore, a right of first refusal—which may or may not ripen into an option depending on whether the owner decides to sell, see, e.g., Pearson, 497 So.2d at 900—cannot create an interest in land, either. [cid:image007.jpg@01CF6B85.00DC8C70] Manuel Farach / Of Counsel - Board Certified in Real Estate Law and Business Litigation by The Florida Bar Richman Greer P.A. One Clearlake Centre Suite 1504 250 Australian Avenue South West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Office: 561.803.3500 Fax: 561.820.1608 Direct: 561.803.3501 Email: MFarach@richmangreer.com<mailto:MFarach@richmangreer.com> http://www.richmangreer.com/ [cid:image008.jpg@01CF6B85.00DC8C70] U.S. Treasury Regulation Circular 230 requires us to advise you that written communications issued by us are not intended to be and cannot be relied upon to avoid penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service. Incoming emails are filtered which may delay receipt. This email is personal to the named recipient(s) and may be privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you received this in error. If so, any review, dissemination, or copying of this email is prohibited. Please immediately notify us by email and delete the original message.. From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org> [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Gregory Dawson Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 2:41 PM To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee' Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County Section 68.03 of the Fla. Real Estate Transactions (Boyer) treatise indicates that an option to purchase real estate is subject to the statute of frauds, citing Minton v. Spivey, 505 So.2d 476 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). Other cases taking that position are McCollum Aviation, Inc. v. CIM Associates, Inc., 446 F. Supp. 511 (S.D. Fla. 1978) and Kamil Gowni & Shenody, Inc. v. BP Corporation North America, Inc., 2003 WL 24051561, 2003 US Dist. LEXIS 26843. website<http://www.edcolaw.com/> | vCard<http://edcolaw.com/vcards/ECA-vc-gdawson.vcf> | map<http://www.edcolaw.com/contact> | email<mailto:gdawson@edcolaw.com> [cid:image009.gif@01CF6B85.00DC8C70]<http://www.edcolaw.com/> The information contained in the preceding message is intended solely for the use of the person(s) to whom it is addressed. The preceding message may contain material that is privileged or protected from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient or the individual responsible for delivery to the intended recipient, (1) do not use, disseminate, forward, or copy the preceding message and (2) please notify sender immediately by e-mail or telephone and destroy the preceding message. Thank you. Internal Revenue Service regulations require that certain types of written advice include a disclaimer. To the extent the preceding message contains advice relating to a federal tax law issue, unless expressly stated otherwise, the advice is not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by the recipient or any other taxpayer, for the purpose of avoiding federal tax penalties, and was not written to support the promotion or marketing of any transactions or matters. From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org> [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Manuel Farach Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 1:57 PM To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County Arlene, The case is more complicated than it seems because the exercise of an option (if one does exist in this case) may create an equitable conversion of the oral contract to purchase. Again, this is a little complicated but Florida actually follows the minority rule and holds that an option to purchase is not an interest in real property. If it’s not an interest in real property, then I don’t believe the Statute of Frauds applies (but I’d love for you to show me otherwise) Thanks [cid:image007.jpg@01CF6B85.00DC8C70] Manuel Farach / Of Counsel - Board Certified in Real Estate Law and Business Litigation by The Florida Bar Richman Greer P.A. One Clearlake Centre Suite 1504 250 Australian Avenue South West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Office: 561.803.3500 Fax: 561.820.1608 Direct: 561.803.3501 Email: MFarach@richmangreer.com<mailto:MFarach@richmangreer.com> http://www.richmangreer.com/ [cid:image008.jpg@01CF6B85.00DC8C70] U.S. Treasury Regulation Circular 230 requires us to advise you that written communications issued by us are not intended to be and cannot be relied upon to avoid penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service. Incoming emails are filtered which may delay receipt. This email is personal to the named recipient(s) and may be privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you received this in error. If so, any review, dissemination, or copying of this email is prohibited. Please immediately notify us by email and delete the original message.. From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org> [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Arlene C. Udick Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 1:46 PM To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee' Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County Dear Manny, I may be missing something, but I believe the 2 claims are unrelated and that you can go forward with the eviction, notwithstanding the alleged oral option to purchase. It seems that the circuit court case has a statute of frauds issue, and unless the lawyer took some action relying on the option to purchase, the case should be dismissed for failure to state a claim since there is no writing to enforce the option. Arlene From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org> [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Manuel Farach Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 12:05 PM To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee Subject: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County Does anyone have case law/practical suggestions for this fact situation? My client gives notice to leave/files for eviction against his month to month tenant as my client has a buyer for the property. I file for eviction in county court, but tenant (who is a lawyer) files suit in circuit court claiming he has an oral option to purchase the property by matching the price. Any case law on this? I’m drawing a blank on my research as it appears to be under Rule 1.060 but there are no cases on this narrow issue Thanks in advance Manny [cid:image007.jpg@01CF6B85.00DC8C70] Manuel Farach / Of Counsel - Board Certified in Real Estate Law and Business Litigation by The Florida Bar Richman Greer P.A. One Clearlake Centre Suite 1504 250 Australian Avenue South West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Office: 561.803.3500 Fax: 561.820.1608 Direct: 561.803.3501 Email: MFarach@richmangreer.com<mailto:MFarach@richmangreer.com> http://www.richmangreer.com/ [cid:image008.jpg@01CF6B85.00DC8C70] U.S. Treasury Regulation Circular 230 requires us to advise you that written communications issued by us are not intended to be and cannot be relied upon to avoid penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service. Incoming emails are filtered which may delay receipt. This email is personal to the named recipient(s) and may be privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you received this in error. If so, any review, dissemination, or copying of this email is prohibited. Please immediately notify us by email and delete the original message.. _______________________________________________ landten mailing list landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org> http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/landten

LC

Leonard Cabral

Fri, May 9, 2014 10:14 PM

I understand your cautiousness but what do you do if the request you to verify the debt?

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Cary Sabol
Sent: Friday, May 09, 2014 1:10 PM
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County

Personally I don't believe the FDCPA applies to a 3 day notice situation, however, I have been including the FDCPA Notice on any 3 day notice that I prepare for a few years now just in case.

Cary
Law Offices of Cary P. Sabol
P.O. Box 15981 | West Palm Beach | Florida | 33416
Phone: (561) 281-2744
IRS Circular 230 Notice: Pursuant to recently enacted U.S. Treasury Department Regulations, we are now required to advise you that, unless otherwise expressly indicated, any federal tax advice expressed above was neither written nor intended by the sender or this firm to be used and cannot be used by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed under U.S. tax law. If any person uses or refers to any such tax advice in promoting, marketing or recommending a partnership or other entity, investment plan or arrangement to any taxpayer, then the advice should be considered to have been written to support the promotion or marketing by a person other than the sender or this firm of that transaction or matter, and such taxpayer should seek advice based on the taxpayer's particular circumstances from an independent tax advisor.

Confidentiality Notice: This electronic mail transmission is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential information belonging to the sender which is protected by the attorney-client privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete the original message. Thank you for your cooperation.
On Friday, May 9, 2014 1:07 PM, Leonard Cabral <leonardcabral@lenslaw.com mailto:leonardcabral@lenslaw.com> wrote:
Maybe.
I have attached two cases for guidance. The key in my opinion is if you regularly files evictions. Again in my opinion Harry would qualify as a debt collector under the FDCPA.

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Beverly Barnett
Sent: Friday, May 09, 2014 11:26 AM
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County

If a three day notice is signed by the attorney, does it have to comply with the Federal Fair Debt Collection Act Section 809(a) requiring a 30 day notice?

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Manuel Farach
Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2014 11:17 AM
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County

I don’t like to file those but yes, we may have to
Thanks

[http://www.richmangreer.com/images/logo.gif]
Manuel Farach / Of Counsel - Board Certified in Real Estate Law and Business Litigation by The Florida Bar
Richman Greer P.A.
One Clearlake Centre
Suite 1504
250 Australian Avenue South
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
Office: 561.803.3500
Fax: 561.820.1608
Direct: 561.803.3501
Email: MFarach@richmangreer.com mailto:MFarach@richmangreer.com
http://www.richmangreer.com/
[http://www.richmangreer.com/emailsig/meritas.gif]
U.S. Treasury Regulation Circular 230 requires us to advise you that written communications issued by us are not intended to be and cannot be relied upon to avoid penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service.
Incoming emails are filtered which may delay receipt. This email is personal to the named recipient(s) and may be privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you received this in error. If so, any review, dissemination, or copying of this email is prohibited. Please immediately notify us by email and delete the original message..

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Leonard Cabral
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 8:51 PM
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County

File a 57.107(1) motion and see what the lawyer/tenant does. Remember you must send the motion to the tenant and hold for 21 days before filing with the court.

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Manuel Farach
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 2:54 PM
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County

Greg,
I’ll have to read those cases as I was relying on Old Port Cove (copy attached) which reads:

[10] Headnote Citing References Where they discuss the rationale, courts adopting the majority view generally conclude that an option or right of first refusal creates an interest in property. Ferrero, 536 A.2d at 1139 (“As rights of first refusal are interests in property, the great majority of American jurisdictions have applied the Rule Against Perpetuities to such rights.”); see, e.g., Stuart Kingston, 596 A.2d at 1384; Gore, 867 P.2d at 338; Martin, 348 N.E.2d at 309; Pace, 347 So.2d at 1317; Melcher, 435 P.2d at 114; McHugh, 380 S.E.2d at 874; Smith, 296 S.E.2d at 854. In Florida, however, an option does not create a legal or equitable interest in property. As we explained over fifty years ago, “until an optionee exercises the right to purchase in accordance with the terms of his option he has no estate, either legal or equitable, in the *1287 lands involved.” Gautier v. Lapof, 91 So.2d 324, 326 (Fla.1956). We have since reiterated that principle. See Leon County Educ. Facilities Auth. v. Hartsfield, 698 So.2d 526, 530 (Fla.1997) (“[T]his Court has long held that the status of parties to the ordinary lease with an option to purchase remains that of landlord and tenant until the option is exercised and that the lessee has no equitable interest in the property.”); BancFlorida v. Hayward, 689 So.2d 1052, 1054 (Fla.1997) ( “Under Florida law, an option to purchase property creates neither an equitable interest nor an equitable remedy.”).

As these cases show, Florida law has consistently held that an option does not create an interest in land. Therefore, a right of first refusal—which may or may not ripen into an option depending on whether the owner decides to sell, see, e.g., Pearson, 497 So.2d at 900—cannot create an interest in land, either.

[Image removed by sender.]
Manuel Farach / Of Counsel - Board Certified in Real Estate Law and Business Litigation by The Florida Bar
Richman Greer P.A.
One Clearlake Centre
Suite 1504
250 Australian Avenue South
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
Office: 561.803.3500
Fax: 561.820.1608
Direct: 561.803.3501
Email: MFarach@richmangreer.com mailto:MFarach@richmangreer.com
http://www.richmangreer.com/
[Image removed by sender.]
U.S. Treasury Regulation Circular 230 requires us to advise you that written communications issued by us are not intended to be and cannot be relied upon to avoid penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service.
Incoming emails are filtered which may delay receipt. This email is personal to the named recipient(s) and may be privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you received this in error. If so, any review, dissemination, or copying of this email is prohibited. Please immediately notify us by email and delete the original message..

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Gregory Dawson
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 2:41 PM
To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee'
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County

Section 68.03 of the Fla. Real Estate Transactions (Boyer) treatise indicates that an option to purchase real estate is subject to the statute of frauds, citing Minton v. Spivey, 505 So.2d 476 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). Other cases taking that position are McCollum Aviation, Inc. v. CIM Associates, Inc., 446 F. Supp. 511 (S.D. Fla. 1978) and Kamil Gowni & Shenody, Inc. v. BP Corporation North America, Inc., 2003 WL 24051561, 2003 US Dist. LEXIS 26843.

websitehttp://www.edcolaw.com/ | vCardhttp://edcolaw.com/vcards/ECA-vc-gdawson.vcf | maphttp://www.edcolaw.com/contact | emailmailto:gdawson@edcolaw.com
[Description: http://edcolaw.com/vcards/ECA-sig3-gdawson.gif]http://www.edcolaw.com/

The information contained in the preceding message is intended solely for the use of the person(s) to whom it is addressed. The preceding message may contain material that is privileged or protected from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient or the individual responsible for delivery to the intended recipient, (1) do not use, disseminate, forward, or copy the preceding message and (2) please notify sender immediately by e-mail or telephone and destroy the preceding message. Thank you.

Internal Revenue Service regulations require that certain types of written advice include a disclaimer. To the extent the preceding message contains advice relating to a federal tax law issue, unless expressly stated otherwise, the advice is not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by the recipient or any other taxpayer, for the purpose of avoiding federal tax penalties, and was not written to support the promotion or marketing of any transactions or matters.

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Manuel Farach
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 1:57 PM
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County

Arlene,
The case is more complicated than it seems because the exercise of an option (if one does exist in this case) may create an equitable conversion of the oral contract to purchase. Again, this is a little complicated but Florida actually follows the minority rule and holds that an option to purchase is not an interest in real property. If it’s not an interest in real property, then I don’t believe the Statute of Frauds applies (but I’d love for you to show me otherwise)
Thanks

[Image removed by sender.]
Manuel Farach / Of Counsel - Board Certified in Real Estate Law and Business Litigation by The Florida Bar
Richman Greer P.A.
One Clearlake Centre
Suite 1504
250 Australian Avenue South
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
Office: 561.803.3500
Fax: 561.820.1608
Direct: 561.803.3501
Email: MFarach@richmangreer.com mailto:MFarach@richmangreer.com
http://www.richmangreer.com/
[Image removed by sender.]
U.S. Treasury Regulation Circular 230 requires us to advise you that written communications issued by us are not intended to be and cannot be relied upon to avoid penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service.
Incoming emails are filtered which may delay receipt. This email is personal to the named recipient(s) and may be privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you received this in error. If so, any review, dissemination, or copying of this email is prohibited. Please immediately notify us by email and delete the original message..

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Arlene C. Udick
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 1:46 PM
To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee'
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County

Dear Manny,

I may be missing something, but I believe the 2 claims are unrelated and that you can go forward with the eviction, notwithstanding the alleged oral option to purchase. It seems that the circuit court case has a statute of frauds issue, and unless the lawyer took some action relying on the option to purchase, the case should be dismissed for failure to state a claim since there is no writing to enforce the option. Arlene

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Manuel Farach
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 12:05 PM
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Subject: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County

Does anyone have case law/practical suggestions for this fact situation?
My client gives notice to leave/files for eviction against his month to month tenant as my client has a buyer for the property. I file for eviction in county court, but tenant (who is a lawyer) files suit in circuit court claiming he has an oral option to purchase the property by matching the price.
Any case law on this? I’m drawing a blank on my research as it appears to be under Rule 1.060 but there are no cases on this narrow issue
Thanks in advance
Manny
[Image removed by sender.]
Manuel Farach / Of Counsel - Board Certified in Real Estate Law and Business Litigation by The Florida Bar
Richman Greer P.A.
One Clearlake Centre
Suite 1504
250 Australian Avenue South
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
Office: 561.803.3500
Fax: 561.820.1608
Direct: 561.803.3501
Email: MFarach@richmangreer.com mailto:MFarach@richmangreer.com
http://www.richmangreer.com/
[Image removed by sender.]
U.S. Treasury Regulation Circular 230 requires us to advise you that written communications issued by us are not intended to be and cannot be relied upon to avoid penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service.
Incoming emails are filtered which may delay receipt. This email is personal to the named recipient(s) and may be privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you received this in error. If so, any review, dissemination, or copying of this email is prohibited. Please immediately notify us by email and delete the original message..

landten mailing list
landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org mailto:landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org
http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/landten

I understand your cautiousness but what do you do if the request you to verify the debt? From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Cary Sabol Sent: Friday, May 09, 2014 1:10 PM To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County Personally I don't believe the FDCPA applies to a 3 day notice situation, however, I have been including the FDCPA Notice on any 3 day notice that I prepare for a few years now just in case. Cary Law Offices of Cary P. Sabol P.O. Box 15981 | West Palm Beach | Florida | 33416 Phone: (561) 281-2744 IRS Circular 230 Notice: Pursuant to recently enacted U.S. Treasury Department Regulations, we are now required to advise you that, unless otherwise expressly indicated, any federal tax advice expressed above was neither written nor intended by the sender or this firm to be used and cannot be used by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed under U.S. tax law. If any person uses or refers to any such tax advice in promoting, marketing or recommending a partnership or other entity, investment plan or arrangement to any taxpayer, then the advice should be considered to have been written to support the promotion or marketing by a person other than the sender or this firm of that transaction or matter, and such taxpayer should seek advice based on the taxpayer's particular circumstances from an independent tax advisor. Confidentiality Notice: This electronic mail transmission is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential information belonging to the sender which is protected by the attorney-client privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete the original message. Thank you for your cooperation. On Friday, May 9, 2014 1:07 PM, Leonard Cabral <leonardcabral@lenslaw.com<mailto:leonardcabral@lenslaw.com>> wrote: Maybe. I have attached two cases for guidance. The key in my opinion is if you regularly files evictions. Again in my opinion Harry would qualify as a debt collector under the FDCPA. From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org> [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Beverly Barnett Sent: Friday, May 09, 2014 11:26 AM To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County If a three day notice is signed by the attorney, does it have to comply with the Federal Fair Debt Collection Act Section 809(a) requiring a 30 day notice? From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org> [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Manuel Farach Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2014 11:17 AM To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County I don’t like to file those but yes, we may have to Thanks [http://www.richmangreer.com/images/logo.gif] Manuel Farach / Of Counsel - Board Certified in Real Estate Law and Business Litigation by The Florida Bar Richman Greer P.A. One Clearlake Centre Suite 1504 250 Australian Avenue South West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Office: 561.803.3500 Fax: 561.820.1608 Direct: 561.803.3501 Email: MFarach@richmangreer.com<mailto:MFarach@richmangreer.com> http://www.richmangreer.com/ [http://www.richmangreer.com/emailsig/meritas.gif] U.S. Treasury Regulation Circular 230 requires us to advise you that written communications issued by us are not intended to be and cannot be relied upon to avoid penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service. Incoming emails are filtered which may delay receipt. This email is personal to the named recipient(s) and may be privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you received this in error. If so, any review, dissemination, or copying of this email is prohibited. Please immediately notify us by email and delete the original message.. From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org> [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Leonard Cabral Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 8:51 PM To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County File a 57.107(1) motion and see what the lawyer/tenant does. Remember you must send the motion to the tenant and hold for 21 days before filing with the court. From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org> [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Manuel Farach Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 2:54 PM To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County Greg, I’ll have to read those cases as I was relying on Old Port Cove (copy attached) which reads: [10] Headnote Citing References Where they discuss the rationale, courts adopting the majority view generally conclude that an option or right of first refusal creates an interest in property. Ferrero, 536 A.2d at 1139 (“As rights of first refusal are interests in property, the great majority of American jurisdictions have applied the Rule Against Perpetuities to such rights.”); see, e.g., Stuart Kingston, 596 A.2d at 1384; Gore, 867 P.2d at 338; Martin, 348 N.E.2d at 309; Pace, 347 So.2d at 1317; Melcher, 435 P.2d at 114; McHugh, 380 S.E.2d at 874; Smith, 296 S.E.2d at 854. In Florida, however, an option does not create a legal or equitable interest in property. As we explained over fifty years ago, “until an optionee exercises the right to purchase in accordance with the terms of his option he has no estate, either legal or equitable, in the *1287 lands involved.” Gautier v. Lapof, 91 So.2d 324, 326 (Fla.1956). We have since reiterated that principle. See Leon County Educ. Facilities Auth. v. Hartsfield, 698 So.2d 526, 530 (Fla.1997) (“[T]his Court has long held that the status of parties to the ordinary lease with an option to purchase remains that of landlord and tenant until the option is exercised and that the lessee has no equitable interest in the property.”); BancFlorida v. Hayward, 689 So.2d 1052, 1054 (Fla.1997) ( “Under Florida law, an option to purchase property creates neither an equitable interest nor an equitable remedy.”). As these cases show, Florida law has consistently held that an option does not create an interest in land. Therefore, a right of first refusal—which may or may not ripen into an option depending on whether the owner decides to sell, see, e.g., Pearson, 497 So.2d at 900—cannot create an interest in land, either. [Image removed by sender.] Manuel Farach / Of Counsel - Board Certified in Real Estate Law and Business Litigation by The Florida Bar Richman Greer P.A. One Clearlake Centre Suite 1504 250 Australian Avenue South West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Office: 561.803.3500 Fax: 561.820.1608 Direct: 561.803.3501 Email: MFarach@richmangreer.com<mailto:MFarach@richmangreer.com> http://www.richmangreer.com/ [Image removed by sender.] U.S. Treasury Regulation Circular 230 requires us to advise you that written communications issued by us are not intended to be and cannot be relied upon to avoid penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service. Incoming emails are filtered which may delay receipt. This email is personal to the named recipient(s) and may be privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you received this in error. If so, any review, dissemination, or copying of this email is prohibited. Please immediately notify us by email and delete the original message.. From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org> [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Gregory Dawson Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 2:41 PM To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee' Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County Section 68.03 of the Fla. Real Estate Transactions (Boyer) treatise indicates that an option to purchase real estate is subject to the statute of frauds, citing Minton v. Spivey, 505 So.2d 476 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). Other cases taking that position are McCollum Aviation, Inc. v. CIM Associates, Inc., 446 F. Supp. 511 (S.D. Fla. 1978) and Kamil Gowni & Shenody, Inc. v. BP Corporation North America, Inc., 2003 WL 24051561, 2003 US Dist. LEXIS 26843. website<http://www.edcolaw.com/> | vCard<http://edcolaw.com/vcards/ECA-vc-gdawson.vcf> | map<http://www.edcolaw.com/contact> | email<mailto:gdawson@edcolaw.com> [Description: http://edcolaw.com/vcards/ECA-sig3-gdawson.gif]<http://www.edcolaw.com/> The information contained in the preceding message is intended solely for the use of the person(s) to whom it is addressed. The preceding message may contain material that is privileged or protected from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient or the individual responsible for delivery to the intended recipient, (1) do not use, disseminate, forward, or copy the preceding message and (2) please notify sender immediately by e-mail or telephone and destroy the preceding message. Thank you. Internal Revenue Service regulations require that certain types of written advice include a disclaimer. To the extent the preceding message contains advice relating to a federal tax law issue, unless expressly stated otherwise, the advice is not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by the recipient or any other taxpayer, for the purpose of avoiding federal tax penalties, and was not written to support the promotion or marketing of any transactions or matters. From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org> [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Manuel Farach Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 1:57 PM To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County Arlene, The case is more complicated than it seems because the exercise of an option (if one does exist in this case) may create an equitable conversion of the oral contract to purchase. Again, this is a little complicated but Florida actually follows the minority rule and holds that an option to purchase is not an interest in real property. If it’s not an interest in real property, then I don’t believe the Statute of Frauds applies (but I’d love for you to show me otherwise) Thanks [Image removed by sender.] Manuel Farach / Of Counsel - Board Certified in Real Estate Law and Business Litigation by The Florida Bar Richman Greer P.A. One Clearlake Centre Suite 1504 250 Australian Avenue South West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Office: 561.803.3500 Fax: 561.820.1608 Direct: 561.803.3501 Email: MFarach@richmangreer.com<mailto:MFarach@richmangreer.com> http://www.richmangreer.com/ [Image removed by sender.] U.S. Treasury Regulation Circular 230 requires us to advise you that written communications issued by us are not intended to be and cannot be relied upon to avoid penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service. Incoming emails are filtered which may delay receipt. This email is personal to the named recipient(s) and may be privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you received this in error. If so, any review, dissemination, or copying of this email is prohibited. Please immediately notify us by email and delete the original message.. From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org> [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Arlene C. Udick Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 1:46 PM To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee' Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County Dear Manny, I may be missing something, but I believe the 2 claims are unrelated and that you can go forward with the eviction, notwithstanding the alleged oral option to purchase. It seems that the circuit court case has a statute of frauds issue, and unless the lawyer took some action relying on the option to purchase, the case should be dismissed for failure to state a claim since there is no writing to enforce the option. Arlene From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org> [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Manuel Farach Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 12:05 PM To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee Subject: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County Does anyone have case law/practical suggestions for this fact situation? My client gives notice to leave/files for eviction against his month to month tenant as my client has a buyer for the property. I file for eviction in county court, but tenant (who is a lawyer) files suit in circuit court claiming he has an oral option to purchase the property by matching the price. Any case law on this? I’m drawing a blank on my research as it appears to be under Rule 1.060 but there are no cases on this narrow issue Thanks in advance Manny [Image removed by sender.] Manuel Farach / Of Counsel - Board Certified in Real Estate Law and Business Litigation by The Florida Bar Richman Greer P.A. One Clearlake Centre Suite 1504 250 Australian Avenue South West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Office: 561.803.3500 Fax: 561.820.1608 Direct: 561.803.3501 Email: MFarach@richmangreer.com<mailto:MFarach@richmangreer.com> http://www.richmangreer.com/ [Image removed by sender.] U.S. Treasury Regulation Circular 230 requires us to advise you that written communications issued by us are not intended to be and cannot be relied upon to avoid penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service. Incoming emails are filtered which may delay receipt. This email is personal to the named recipient(s) and may be privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you received this in error. If so, any review, dissemination, or copying of this email is prohibited. Please immediately notify us by email and delete the original message.. _______________________________________________ landten mailing list landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org> http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/landten

G

Gioia

Fri, May 9, 2014 11:28 PM

Sorry to chime in so late, but I would read the Frey case. If there is any question that the occupant is there under an agreement to purchase, i.e. the relationship of the parties may be buyer/seller instead of landlord tenant, then an evidentiary hearing needs to be held because c. 83 will not apply if it is not a landlord/tenant relationship. My understanding is that you cannot proceed with the eviction without resolving this issue. .

I hope this helps.

Gioia DeCarlo, Esquire
DeCarlo & Valentine, LLC

828 N.W. 9th Court
Miami, Florida 33136
O. 305-324-9823
Efax 888-551-2980

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Arlene C. Udick
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 1:46 PM
To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee'
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County

Dear Manny,

I may be missing something, but I believe the 2 claims are unrelated and that you can go forward with the eviction, notwithstanding the alleged oral option to purchase. It seems that the circuit court case has a statute of frauds issue, and unless the lawyer took some action relying on the option to purchase, the case should be dismissed for failure to state a claim since there is no writing to enforce the option. Arlene

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Manuel Farach
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 12:05 PM
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Subject: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County

Does anyone have case law/practical suggestions for this fact situation?

My client gives notice to leave/files for eviction against his month to month tenant as my client has a buyer for the property. I file for eviction in county court, but tenant (who is a lawyer) files suit in circuit court claiming he has an oral option to purchase the property by matching the price.

Any case law on this? I’m drawing a blank on my research as it appears to be under Rule 1.060 but there are no cases on this narrow issue

Thanks in advance

Manny

Image removed by sender.

Manuel Farach / Of Counsel - Board Certified in Real Estate Law and Business Litigation by The Florida Bar

Richman Greer P.A.
One Clearlake Centre
Suite 1504
250 Australian Avenue South
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
Office: 561.803.3500
Fax: 561.820.1608
Direct: 561.803.3501
Email: MFarach@richmangreer.com
www.RichmanGreer.com

Image removed by sender.

U.S. Treasury Regulation Circular 230 requires us to advise you that written communications issued by us are not intended to be and cannot be relied upon to avoid penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service.

Incoming emails are filtered which may delay receipt. This email is personal to the named recipient(s) and may be privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you received this in error. If so, any review, dissemination, or copying of this email is prohibited. Please immediately notify us by email and delete the original message..

Sorry to chime in so late, but I would read the Frey case. If there is any question that the occupant is there under an agreement to purchase, i.e. the relationship of the parties may be buyer/seller instead of landlord tenant, then an evidentiary hearing needs to be held because c. 83 will not apply if it is not a landlord/tenant relationship. My understanding is that you cannot proceed with the eviction without resolving this issue. . I hope this helps. Gioia DeCarlo, Esquire DeCarlo & Valentine, LLC 828 N.W. 9th Court Miami, Florida 33136 O. 305-324-9823 Efax 888-551-2980 From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Arlene C. Udick Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 1:46 PM To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee' Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County Dear Manny, I may be missing something, but I believe the 2 claims are unrelated and that you can go forward with the eviction, notwithstanding the alleged oral option to purchase. It seems that the circuit court case has a statute of frauds issue, and unless the lawyer took some action relying on the option to purchase, the case should be dismissed for failure to state a claim since there is no writing to enforce the option. Arlene From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Manuel Farach Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 12:05 PM To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee Subject: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County Does anyone have case law/practical suggestions for this fact situation? My client gives notice to leave/files for eviction against his month to month tenant as my client has a buyer for the property. I file for eviction in county court, but tenant (who is a lawyer) files suit in circuit court claiming he has an oral option to purchase the property by matching the price. Any case law on this? I’m drawing a blank on my research as it appears to be under Rule 1.060 but there are no cases on this narrow issue Thanks in advance Manny _____ Image removed by sender. Manuel Farach / Of Counsel - Board Certified in Real Estate Law and Business Litigation by The Florida Bar Richman Greer P.A. One Clearlake Centre Suite 1504 250 Australian Avenue South West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Office: 561.803.3500 Fax: 561.820.1608 Direct: 561.803.3501 Email: MFarach@richmangreer.com www.RichmanGreer.com Image removed by sender. U.S. Treasury Regulation Circular 230 requires us to advise you that written communications issued by us are not intended to be and cannot be relied upon to avoid penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service. Incoming emails are filtered which may delay receipt. This email is personal to the named recipient(s) and may be privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you received this in error. If so, any review, dissemination, or copying of this email is prohibited. Please immediately notify us by email and delete the original message.. _____

LC

Leonard Cabral

Sat, May 10, 2014 12:04 AM

Harry usually has the best advice. Avoid doing it and avoid the possibility of some lawyer filing an FDCPA case against you. In Florida the only defense may that a 3 –day notice falls within the litigation privilege.

Leonard P. Cabral, Esq.
Leonardcabral@lenslaw.com

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Chuck Hoskin
Sent: Friday, May 09, 2014 1:49 PM
To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee'
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County

Harry has the best advice. Avoid the problem altogether by having the landlord’s name and address (and phone number) on it. You may be correct that you are a not a debt collector, but you may have to prove it in court.

In addition to the 30 day validation notice, FDCPA requires the conspicuous “Miranda Warning” - this is an attempt to collect a debt, etc...

If you look closely at the statute (83.56), the substantially sufficient form does not appear to require a signature. Therefore, just put the landlord’s name, address, and phone number on the notice.

This e-mail message and all attachments transmitted with it may contain legally privileged and confidential information intended solely for the use of the addressee. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any reading, dissemination, distribution, copying, or other use of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone (850-433-6581) or by electronic mail (choskin@esclaw.com mailto:choskin@esclaw.com) and then delete this message and all copies and backups thereof. Thank you.

Charles P. Hoskin
Direct Dial: 850-444-3881
Fax: 850-434-7163

[cid:image001.png@01CE0382.09E1FC40]

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Harry Heist
Sent: Friday, May 09, 2014 12:33 PM
To: 'Cary Sabol'; 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee'
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County

I would NEVER sign a Three Day Notice. I would only have the landlord’s name and address on it. Why have to argue about whether or not you are a debt collector? Why make the notice confusing to the tenant with the 30 day baloney? Never.

Harry

LAW OFFICES OF
HEIST, WEISSE & WOLK P.A.
PH: 1 800 253 8428
FAX: 1 800 367 9038
"Serving the Property Management Professional"
Website: www.evict.com http://www.evict.com/
Email: harry@evict.com mailto:harry@evict.com
[cid:image002.png@01CF6BC1.EBA1BFA0]https://www.facebook.com/pages/Heist-Weisse-Wolk-PA/343965575625870

Visit us on Facebook

THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE IS CONFIDENTIAL, ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGED, AND INTENDED FOR THE PERSONS NAMED ABOVE ONLY. ALL OTHER USE, COPYING, OR DISTRIBUTION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Cary Sabol
Sent: Friday, May 09, 2014 1:10 PM
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County

Personally I don't believe the FDCPA applies to a 3 day notice situation, however, I have been including the FDCPA Notice on any 3 day notice that I prepare for a few years now just in case.

Cary
Law Offices of Cary P. Sabol
P.O. Box 15981 | West Palm Beach | Florida | 33416
Phone: (561) 281-2744
IRS Circular 230 Notice: Pursuant to recently enacted U.S. Treasury Department Regulations, we are now required to advise you that, unless otherwise expressly indicated, any federal tax advice expressed above was neither written nor intended by the sender or this firm to be used and cannot be used by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed under U.S. tax law. If any person uses or refers to any such tax advice in promoting, marketing or recommending a partnership or other entity, investment plan or arrangement to any taxpayer, then the advice should be considered to have been written to support the promotion or marketing by a person other than the sender or this firm of that transaction or matter, and such taxpayer should seek advice based on the taxpayer's particular circumstances from an independent tax advisor.

Confidentiality Notice: This electronic mail transmission is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential information belonging to the sender which is protected by the attorney-client privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete the original message. Thank you for your cooperation.
On Friday, May 9, 2014 1:07 PM, Leonard Cabral <leonardcabral@lenslaw.com mailto:leonardcabral@lenslaw.com> wrote:
Maybe.
I have attached two cases for guidance. The key in my opinion is if you regularly files evictions. Again in my opinion Harry would qualify as a debt collector under the FDCPA.

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org]mailto:[mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Beverly Barnett
Sent: Friday, May 09, 2014 11:26 AM
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County

If a three day notice is signed by the attorney, does it have to comply with the Federal Fair Debt Collection Act Section 809(a) requiring a 30 day notice?

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Manuel Farach
Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2014 11:17 AM
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County

I don’t like to file those but yes, we may have to
Thanks

[http://www.richmangreer.com/images/logo.gif]
Manuel Farach / Of Counsel - Board Certified in Real Estate Law and Business Litigation by The Florida Bar
Richman Greer P.A.
One Clearlake Centre
Suite 1504
250 Australian Avenue South
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
Office: 561.803.3500
Fax: 561.820.1608
Direct: 561.803.3501
Email: MFarach@richmangreer.com mailto:MFarach@richmangreer.com
http://www.richmangreer.com/
[http://www.richmangreer.com/emailsig/meritas.gif]
U.S. Treasury Regulation Circular 230 requires us to advise you that written communications issued by us are not intended to be and cannot be relied upon to avoid penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service.
Incoming emails are filtered which may delay receipt. This email is personal to the named recipient(s) and may be privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you received this in error. If so, any review, dissemination, or copying of this email is prohibited. Please immediately notify us by email and delete the original message..

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Leonard Cabral
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 8:51 PM
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County

File a 57.107(1) motion and see what the lawyer/tenant does. Remember you must send the motion to the tenant and hold for 21 days before filing with the court.

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Manuel Farach
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 2:54 PM
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County

Greg,
I’ll have to read those cases as I was relying on Old Port Cove (copy attached) which reads:

[10] Headnote Citing References Where they discuss the rationale, courts adopting the majority view generally conclude that an option or right of first refusal creates an interest in property. Ferrero, 536 A.2d at 1139 (“As rights of first refusal are interests in property, the great majority of American jurisdictions have applied the Rule Against Perpetuities to such rights.”); see, e.g., Stuart Kingston, 596 A.2d at 1384; Gore, 867 P.2d at 338; Martin, 348 N.E.2d at 309; Pace, 347 So.2d at 1317; Melcher, 435 P.2d at 114; McHugh, 380 S.E.2d at 874; Smith, 296 S.E.2d at 854. In Florida, however, an option does not create a legal or equitable interest in property. As we explained over fifty years ago, “until an optionee exercises the right to purchase in accordance with the terms of his option he has no estate, either legal or equitable, in the *1287 lands involved.” Gautier v. Lapof, 91 So.2d 324, 326 (Fla.1956). We have since reiterated that principle. See Leon County Educ. Facilities Auth. v. Hartsfield, 698 So.2d 526, 530 (Fla.1997) (“[T]his Court has long held that the status of parties to the ordinary lease with an option to purchase remains that of landlord and tenant until the option is exercised and that the lessee has no equitable interest in the property.”); BancFlorida v. Hayward, 689 So.2d 1052, 1054 (Fla.1997) ( “Under Florida law, an option to purchase property creates neither an equitable interest nor an equitable remedy.”).

As these cases show, Florida law has consistently held that an option does not create an interest in land. Therefore, a right of first refusal—which may or may not ripen into an option depending on whether the owner decides to sell, see, e.g., Pearson, 497 So.2d at 900—cannot create an interest in land, either.

[Image removed by sender.]
Manuel Farach / Of Counsel - Board Certified in Real Estate Law and Business Litigation by The Florida Bar
Richman Greer P.A.
One Clearlake Centre
Suite 1504
250 Australian Avenue South
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
Office: 561.803.3500
Fax: 561.820.1608
Direct: 561.803.3501
Email: MFarach@richmangreer.com mailto:MFarach@richmangreer.com
http://www.richmangreer.com/
[Image removed by sender.]
U.S. Treasury Regulation Circular 230 requires us to advise you that written communications issued by us are not intended to be and cannot be relied upon to avoid penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service.
Incoming emails are filtered which may delay receipt. This email is personal to the named recipient(s) and may be privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you received this in error. If so, any review, dissemination, or copying of this email is prohibited. Please immediately notify us by email and delete the original message..

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Gregory Dawson
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 2:41 PM
To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee'
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County

Section 68.03 of the Fla. Real Estate Transactions (Boyer) treatise indicates that an option to purchase real estate is subject to the statute of frauds, citing Minton v. Spivey, 505 So.2d 476 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). Other cases taking that position are McCollum Aviation, Inc. v. CIM Associates, Inc., 446 F. Supp. 511 (S.D. Fla. 1978) and Kamil Gowni & Shenody, Inc. v. BP Corporation North America, Inc., 2003 WL 24051561, 2003 US Dist. LEXIS 26843.

websitehttp://www.edcolaw.com/ | vCardhttp://edcolaw.com/vcards/ECA-vc-gdawson.vcf | maphttp://www.edcolaw.com/contact | emailmailto:gdawson@edcolaw.com
[Description: http://edcolaw.com/vcards/ECA-sig3-gdawson.gif]http://www.edcolaw.com/

The information contained in the preceding message is intended solely for the use of the person(s) to whom it is addressed. The preceding message may contain material that is privileged or protected from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient or the individual responsible for delivery to the intended recipient, (1) do not use, disseminate, forward, or copy the preceding message and (2) please notify sender immediately by e-mail or telephone and destroy the preceding message. Thank you.

Internal Revenue Service regulations require that certain types of written advice include a disclaimer. To the extent the preceding message contains advice relating to a federal tax law issue, unless expressly stated otherwise, the advice is not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by the recipient or any other taxpayer, for the purpose of avoiding federal tax penalties, and was not written to support the promotion or marketing of any transactions or matters.

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Manuel Farach
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 1:57 PM
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County

Arlene,
The case is more complicated than it seems because the exercise of an option (if one does exist in this case) may create an equitable conversion of the oral contract to purchase. Again, this is a little complicated but Florida actually follows the minority rule and holds that an option to purchase is not an interest in real property. If it’s not an interest in real property, then I don’t believe the Statute of Frauds applies (but I’d love for you to show me otherwise)
Thanks

[Image removed by sender.]
Manuel Farach / Of Counsel - Board Certified in Real Estate Law and Business Litigation by The Florida Bar
Richman Greer P.A.
One Clearlake Centre
Suite 1504
250 Australian Avenue South
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
Office: 561.803.3500
Fax: 561.820.1608
Direct: 561.803.3501
Email: MFarach@richmangreer.com mailto:MFarach@richmangreer.com
http://www.richmangreer.com/
[Image removed by sender.]
U.S. Treasury Regulation Circular 230 requires us to advise you that written communications issued by us are not intended to be and cannot be relied upon to avoid penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service.
Incoming emails are filtered which may delay receipt. This email is personal to the named recipient(s) and may be privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you received this in error. If so, any review, dissemination, or copying of this email is prohibited. Please immediately notify us by email and delete the original message..

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Arlene C. Udick
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 1:46 PM
To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee'
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County

Dear Manny,

I may be missing something, but I believe the 2 claims are unrelated and that you can go forward with the eviction, notwithstanding the alleged oral option to purchase. It seems that the circuit court case has a statute of frauds issue, and unless the lawyer took some action relying on the option to purchase, the case should be dismissed for failure to state a claim since there is no writing to enforce the option. Arlene

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Manuel Farach
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 12:05 PM
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Subject: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County

Does anyone have case law/practical suggestions for this fact situation?
My client gives notice to leave/files for eviction against his month to month tenant as my client has a buyer for the property. I file for eviction in county court, but tenant (who is a lawyer) files suit in circuit court claiming he has an oral option to purchase the property by matching the price.
Any case law on this? I’m drawing a blank on my research as it appears to be under Rule 1.060 but there are no cases on this narrow issue
Thanks in advance
Manny
[Image removed by sender.]
Manuel Farach / Of Counsel - Board Certified in Real Estate Law and Business Litigation by The Florida Bar
Richman Greer P.A.
One Clearlake Centre
Suite 1504
250 Australian Avenue South
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
Office: 561.803.3500
Fax: 561.820.1608
Direct: 561.803.3501
Email: MFarach@richmangreer.com mailto:MFarach@richmangreer.com
http://www.richmangreer.com/
[Image removed by sender.]
U.S. Treasury Regulation Circular 230 requires us to advise you that written communications issued by us are not intended to be and cannot be relied upon to avoid penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service.
Incoming emails are filtered which may delay receipt. This email is personal to the named recipient(s) and may be privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you received this in error. If so, any review, dissemination, or copying of this email is prohibited. Please immediately notify us by email and delete the original message..

landten mailing list
landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org mailto:landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org
http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/landten

Harry usually has the best advice. Avoid doing it and avoid the possibility of some lawyer filing an FDCPA case against you. In Florida the only defense may that a 3 –day notice falls within the litigation privilege. Leonard P. Cabral, Esq. Leonardcabral@lenslaw.com From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Chuck Hoskin Sent: Friday, May 09, 2014 1:49 PM To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee' Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County Harry has the best advice. Avoid the problem altogether by having the landlord’s name and address (and phone number) on it. You may be correct that you are a not a debt collector, but you may have to prove it in court. In addition to the 30 day validation notice, FDCPA requires the conspicuous “Miranda Warning” - this is an attempt to collect a debt, etc... If you look closely at the statute (83.56), the substantially sufficient form does not appear to require a signature. Therefore, just put the landlord’s name, address, and phone number on the notice. This e-mail message and all attachments transmitted with it may contain legally privileged and confidential information intended solely for the use of the addressee. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any reading, dissemination, distribution, copying, or other use of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone (850-433-6581) or by electronic mail (choskin@esclaw.com<mailto:choskin@esclaw.com>) and then delete this message and all copies and backups thereof. Thank you. Charles P. Hoskin Direct Dial: 850-444-3881 Fax: 850-434-7163 [cid:image001.png@01CE0382.09E1FC40] From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org> [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Harry Heist Sent: Friday, May 09, 2014 12:33 PM To: 'Cary Sabol'; 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee' Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County I would NEVER sign a Three Day Notice. I would only have the landlord’s name and address on it. Why have to argue about whether or not you are a debt collector? Why make the notice confusing to the tenant with the 30 day baloney? Never. Harry LAW OFFICES OF HEIST, WEISSE & WOLK P.A. PH: 1 800 253 8428 FAX: 1 800 367 9038 "Serving the Property Management Professional" Website: www.evict.com<http://www.evict.com/> Email: harry@evict.com<mailto:harry@evict.com> [cid:image002.png@01CF6BC1.EBA1BFA0]<https://www.facebook.com/pages/Heist-Weisse-Wolk-PA/343965575625870> Visit us on Facebook THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE IS CONFIDENTIAL, ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGED, AND INTENDED FOR THE PERSONS NAMED ABOVE ONLY. ALL OTHER USE, COPYING, OR DISTRIBUTION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org> [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Cary Sabol Sent: Friday, May 09, 2014 1:10 PM To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County Personally I don't believe the FDCPA applies to a 3 day notice situation, however, I have been including the FDCPA Notice on any 3 day notice that I prepare for a few years now just in case. Cary Law Offices of Cary P. Sabol P.O. Box 15981 | West Palm Beach | Florida | 33416 Phone: (561) 281-2744 IRS Circular 230 Notice: Pursuant to recently enacted U.S. Treasury Department Regulations, we are now required to advise you that, unless otherwise expressly indicated, any federal tax advice expressed above was neither written nor intended by the sender or this firm to be used and cannot be used by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed under U.S. tax law. If any person uses or refers to any such tax advice in promoting, marketing or recommending a partnership or other entity, investment plan or arrangement to any taxpayer, then the advice should be considered to have been written to support the promotion or marketing by a person other than the sender or this firm of that transaction or matter, and such taxpayer should seek advice based on the taxpayer's particular circumstances from an independent tax advisor. Confidentiality Notice: This electronic mail transmission is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential information belonging to the sender which is protected by the attorney-client privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete the original message. Thank you for your cooperation. On Friday, May 9, 2014 1:07 PM, Leonard Cabral <leonardcabral@lenslaw.com<mailto:leonardcabral@lenslaw.com>> wrote: Maybe. I have attached two cases for guidance. The key in my opinion is if you regularly files evictions. Again in my opinion Harry would qualify as a debt collector under the FDCPA. From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org> [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org]<mailto:[mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org]> On Behalf Of Beverly Barnett Sent: Friday, May 09, 2014 11:26 AM To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County If a three day notice is signed by the attorney, does it have to comply with the Federal Fair Debt Collection Act Section 809(a) requiring a 30 day notice? From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org> [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Manuel Farach Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2014 11:17 AM To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County I don’t like to file those but yes, we may have to Thanks [http://www.richmangreer.com/images/logo.gif] Manuel Farach / Of Counsel - Board Certified in Real Estate Law and Business Litigation by The Florida Bar Richman Greer P.A. One Clearlake Centre Suite 1504 250 Australian Avenue South West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Office: 561.803.3500 Fax: 561.820.1608 Direct: 561.803.3501 Email: MFarach@richmangreer.com<mailto:MFarach@richmangreer.com> http://www.richmangreer.com/ [http://www.richmangreer.com/emailsig/meritas.gif] U.S. Treasury Regulation Circular 230 requires us to advise you that written communications issued by us are not intended to be and cannot be relied upon to avoid penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service. Incoming emails are filtered which may delay receipt. This email is personal to the named recipient(s) and may be privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you received this in error. If so, any review, dissemination, or copying of this email is prohibited. Please immediately notify us by email and delete the original message.. From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org> [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Leonard Cabral Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 8:51 PM To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County File a 57.107(1) motion and see what the lawyer/tenant does. Remember you must send the motion to the tenant and hold for 21 days before filing with the court. From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org> [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Manuel Farach Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 2:54 PM To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County Greg, I’ll have to read those cases as I was relying on Old Port Cove (copy attached) which reads: [10] Headnote Citing References Where they discuss the rationale, courts adopting the majority view generally conclude that an option or right of first refusal creates an interest in property. Ferrero, 536 A.2d at 1139 (“As rights of first refusal are interests in property, the great majority of American jurisdictions have applied the Rule Against Perpetuities to such rights.”); see, e.g., Stuart Kingston, 596 A.2d at 1384; Gore, 867 P.2d at 338; Martin, 348 N.E.2d at 309; Pace, 347 So.2d at 1317; Melcher, 435 P.2d at 114; McHugh, 380 S.E.2d at 874; Smith, 296 S.E.2d at 854. In Florida, however, an option does not create a legal or equitable interest in property. As we explained over fifty years ago, “until an optionee exercises the right to purchase in accordance with the terms of his option he has no estate, either legal or equitable, in the *1287 lands involved.” Gautier v. Lapof, 91 So.2d 324, 326 (Fla.1956). We have since reiterated that principle. See Leon County Educ. Facilities Auth. v. Hartsfield, 698 So.2d 526, 530 (Fla.1997) (“[T]his Court has long held that the status of parties to the ordinary lease with an option to purchase remains that of landlord and tenant until the option is exercised and that the lessee has no equitable interest in the property.”); BancFlorida v. Hayward, 689 So.2d 1052, 1054 (Fla.1997) ( “Under Florida law, an option to purchase property creates neither an equitable interest nor an equitable remedy.”). As these cases show, Florida law has consistently held that an option does not create an interest in land. Therefore, a right of first refusal—which may or may not ripen into an option depending on whether the owner decides to sell, see, e.g., Pearson, 497 So.2d at 900—cannot create an interest in land, either. [Image removed by sender.] Manuel Farach / Of Counsel - Board Certified in Real Estate Law and Business Litigation by The Florida Bar Richman Greer P.A. One Clearlake Centre Suite 1504 250 Australian Avenue South West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Office: 561.803.3500 Fax: 561.820.1608 Direct: 561.803.3501 Email: MFarach@richmangreer.com<mailto:MFarach@richmangreer.com> http://www.richmangreer.com/ [Image removed by sender.] U.S. Treasury Regulation Circular 230 requires us to advise you that written communications issued by us are not intended to be and cannot be relied upon to avoid penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service. Incoming emails are filtered which may delay receipt. This email is personal to the named recipient(s) and may be privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you received this in error. If so, any review, dissemination, or copying of this email is prohibited. Please immediately notify us by email and delete the original message.. From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org> [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Gregory Dawson Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 2:41 PM To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee' Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County Section 68.03 of the Fla. Real Estate Transactions (Boyer) treatise indicates that an option to purchase real estate is subject to the statute of frauds, citing Minton v. Spivey, 505 So.2d 476 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). Other cases taking that position are McCollum Aviation, Inc. v. CIM Associates, Inc., 446 F. Supp. 511 (S.D. Fla. 1978) and Kamil Gowni & Shenody, Inc. v. BP Corporation North America, Inc., 2003 WL 24051561, 2003 US Dist. LEXIS 26843. website<http://www.edcolaw.com/> | vCard<http://edcolaw.com/vcards/ECA-vc-gdawson.vcf> | map<http://www.edcolaw.com/contact> | email<mailto:gdawson@edcolaw.com> [Description: http://edcolaw.com/vcards/ECA-sig3-gdawson.gif]<http://www.edcolaw.com/> The information contained in the preceding message is intended solely for the use of the person(s) to whom it is addressed. The preceding message may contain material that is privileged or protected from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient or the individual responsible for delivery to the intended recipient, (1) do not use, disseminate, forward, or copy the preceding message and (2) please notify sender immediately by e-mail or telephone and destroy the preceding message. Thank you. Internal Revenue Service regulations require that certain types of written advice include a disclaimer. To the extent the preceding message contains advice relating to a federal tax law issue, unless expressly stated otherwise, the advice is not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by the recipient or any other taxpayer, for the purpose of avoiding federal tax penalties, and was not written to support the promotion or marketing of any transactions or matters. From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org> [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Manuel Farach Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 1:57 PM To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County Arlene, The case is more complicated than it seems because the exercise of an option (if one does exist in this case) may create an equitable conversion of the oral contract to purchase. Again, this is a little complicated but Florida actually follows the minority rule and holds that an option to purchase is not an interest in real property. If it’s not an interest in real property, then I don’t believe the Statute of Frauds applies (but I’d love for you to show me otherwise) Thanks [Image removed by sender.] Manuel Farach / Of Counsel - Board Certified in Real Estate Law and Business Litigation by The Florida Bar Richman Greer P.A. One Clearlake Centre Suite 1504 250 Australian Avenue South West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Office: 561.803.3500 Fax: 561.820.1608 Direct: 561.803.3501 Email: MFarach@richmangreer.com<mailto:MFarach@richmangreer.com> http://www.richmangreer.com/ [Image removed by sender.] U.S. Treasury Regulation Circular 230 requires us to advise you that written communications issued by us are not intended to be and cannot be relied upon to avoid penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service. Incoming emails are filtered which may delay receipt. This email is personal to the named recipient(s) and may be privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you received this in error. If so, any review, dissemination, or copying of this email is prohibited. Please immediately notify us by email and delete the original message.. From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org> [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Arlene C. Udick Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 1:46 PM To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee' Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County Dear Manny, I may be missing something, but I believe the 2 claims are unrelated and that you can go forward with the eviction, notwithstanding the alleged oral option to purchase. It seems that the circuit court case has a statute of frauds issue, and unless the lawyer took some action relying on the option to purchase, the case should be dismissed for failure to state a claim since there is no writing to enforce the option. Arlene From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org> [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Manuel Farach Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 12:05 PM To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee Subject: [RPPTL LandTen] Transfer Case from Circuit to County Does anyone have case law/practical suggestions for this fact situation? My client gives notice to leave/files for eviction against his month to month tenant as my client has a buyer for the property. I file for eviction in county court, but tenant (who is a lawyer) files suit in circuit court claiming he has an oral option to purchase the property by matching the price. Any case law on this? I’m drawing a blank on my research as it appears to be under Rule 1.060 but there are no cases on this narrow issue Thanks in advance Manny [Image removed by sender.] Manuel Farach / Of Counsel - Board Certified in Real Estate Law and Business Litigation by The Florida Bar Richman Greer P.A. One Clearlake Centre Suite 1504 250 Australian Avenue South West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Office: 561.803.3500 Fax: 561.820.1608 Direct: 561.803.3501 Email: MFarach@richmangreer.com<mailto:MFarach@richmangreer.com> http://www.richmangreer.com/ [Image removed by sender.] U.S. Treasury Regulation Circular 230 requires us to advise you that written communications issued by us are not intended to be and cannot be relied upon to avoid penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service. Incoming emails are filtered which may delay receipt. This email is personal to the named recipient(s) and may be privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you received this in error. If so, any review, dissemination, or copying of this email is prohibited. Please immediately notify us by email and delete the original message.. _______________________________________________ landten mailing list landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org> http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/landten