[RPPTL LandTen] Residential Double recovery?
Both these statements are correct, right?
If a residential landlord retakes possession for the tenant's account under
FS 83.595(2), he has to credit the tenant with money received from the
replacement tenant, i.e., no double recovery.
But, if instead, the landlord gets two month's worth of liquidated damages
or early termination fee per FS 83.595(4) and quickly relets, the landlord
does not have to credit the tenant with money received from the replacement
tenant, i.e., there can be limited double recovery.
Jeffrey R. Mazor, Esq.
J. R. Mazor & Associates, P.A.
Presidential Circle Building
4000 Hollywood Blvd., Suite 265-s
Hollywood, FL 33021
Phone: 954-962-3500
Fax: 954-962-3560
Email: JMazor@Mazor.com
Yes, that's my understanding as well.
I believe there was a class action suit several years ago where a T sued
a LL because the lease had some sort of liquidated damages/early
termination fee BEFORE Section 83.595 had been amended to allow for such
a remedy. As I recall, the trial court ruled in favor of tenants
holding that the LL's liquidated damages/early termination fee clause
was unenforceable pursuant to 83.47 because it had resulted in the LL
double dipping contrary to 83.595 (2). I believe the parties settled
the case while it was on appeal. Presumably as a result of that case,
Section 83.595 was subsequently amended with the addition of the new
subsection (4) to specifically allow for the liquidated damages/early
termination fee remedy without worry as to allegations of double
dipping.
Greg
Greg Hass, Senior Counsel
Office of Law & Policy | FloridaRealtors(r)
7025 Augusta National Drive, Orlando, FL 32822
talk: 407.438.1400, ext. 2421
visit: http://www.floridarealtors.org
Attend Great American Realtor Days in Tallahassee
http://www.floridarealtors.org/realtordays April 12-13
<<Picture (Device Independent Bitmap)>>
LEGAL DISCLAIMER: The information transmitted is intended solely for
the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain
confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission,
dissemination or other use of or taking action in reliance upon this
information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is
prohibited. If you have received this email in error please contact the
sender and delete the material from any computer.
From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org
[mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Jeffrey
Mazor
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 11:48 AM
To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee'
Subject: [RPPTL LandTen] Residential Double recovery?
Both these statements are correct, right?
If a residential landlord retakes possession for the tenant's account
under FS 83.595(2), he has to credit the tenant with money received from
the replacement tenant, i.e., no double recovery.
But, if instead, the landlord gets two month's worth of liquidated
damages or early termination fee per FS 83.595(4) and quickly relets,
the landlord does not have to credit the tenant with money received from
the replacement tenant, i.e., there can be limited double recovery.
Jeffrey R. Mazor, Esq.
J. R. Mazor & Associates, P.A.
Presidential Circle Building
4000 Hollywood Blvd., Suite 265-s
Hollywood, FL 33021
Phone: 954-962-3500
Fax: 954-962-3560
Email: JMazor@Mazor.com
<< File: ATT6896336.txt >>
I think you are right. I'm attaching a copy of the findings of fact from the
trial court. Rod Tennyson was plaintiff's attorney.
Jeffrey R. Mazor, Esq.
J. R. Mazor & Associates, P.A.
Presidential Circle Building
4000 Hollywood Blvd., Suite 265-s
Hollywood, FL 33021
Phone: 954-962-3500
Fax: 954-962-3560
Email: Jmazor@Mazor.com
From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org
[mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Greg Hass
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 12:32 PM
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Residential Double recovery?
Yes, that's my understanding as well.
I believe there was a class action suit several years ago where a T sued a
LL because the lease had some sort of liquidated damages/early termination
fee BEFORE Section 83.595 had been amended to allow for such a remedy. As I
recall, the trial court ruled in favor of tenants holding that the LL's
liquidated damages/early termination fee clause was unenforceable pursuant
to 83.47 because it had resulted in the LL double dipping contrary to 83.595
(2). I believe the parties settled the case while it was on appeal.
Presumably as a result of that case, Section 83.595 was subsequently amended
with the addition of the new subsection (4) to specifically allow for the
liquidated damages/early termination fee remedy without worry as to
allegations of double dipping.
Greg
Greg Hass, Senior Counsel
Office of Law & Policy | FloridaRealtorsR
7025 Augusta National Drive, Orlando, FL 32822
talk: 407.438.1400, ext. 2421
visit: http://www.floridarealtors.org http://www.floridarealtors.org
Attend Great American Realtor Days in Tallahassee
http://www.floridarealtors.org/realtordays
http://www.floridarealtors.org/realtordays April 12-13
Picture (Device Independent Bitmap)
LEGAL DISCLAIMER: The information transmitted is intended solely for the
individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential
and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or
other use of or taking action in reliance upon this information by persons
or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have
received this email in error please contact the sender and delete the
material from any computer.
From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org
[mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Mazor
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 11:48 AM
To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee'
Subject: [RPPTL LandTen] Residential Double recovery?
Both these statements are correct, right?
If a residential landlord retakes possession for the tenant's account under
FS 83.595(2), he has to credit the tenant with money received from the
replacement tenant, i.e., no double recovery.
But, if instead, the landlord gets two month's worth of liquidated damages
or early termination fee per FS 83.595(4) and quickly relets, the landlord
does not have to credit the tenant with money received from the replacement
tenant, i.e., there can be limited double recovery.
Jeffrey R. Mazor, Esq.
J. R. Mazor & Associates, P.A.
Presidential Circle Building
4000 Hollywood Blvd., Suite 265-s
Hollywood, FL 33021
Phone: 954-962-3500
Fax: 954-962-3560
Email: JMazor@Mazor.com
<< File: ATT6896336.txt >>
Thanks Jeff, yes that's the case I was thinking of. Thank you for
attaching the copy.
Regards,
Greg
From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org
[mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Jeffrey
Mazor
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 12:39 PM
To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee'
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Residential Double recovery?
I think you are right. I'm attaching a copy of the findings of fact from
the trial court. Rod Tennyson was plaintiff's attorney.
Jeffrey R. Mazor, Esq.
J. R. Mazor & Associates, P.A.
Presidential Circle Building
4000 Hollywood Blvd., Suite 265-s
Hollywood, FL 33021
Phone: 954-962-3500
Fax: 954-962-3560
Email: Jmazor@Mazor.com
From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org
[mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Greg Hass
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 12:32 PM
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Residential Double recovery?
Yes, that's my understanding as well.
I believe there was a class action suit several years ago where a T sued
a LL because the lease had some sort of liquidated damages/early
termination fee BEFORE Section 83.595 had been amended to allow for such
a remedy. As I recall, the trial court ruled in favor of tenants
holding that the LL's liquidated damages/early termination fee clause
was unenforceable pursuant to 83.47 because it had resulted in the LL
double dipping contrary to 83.595 (2). I believe the parties settled
the case while it was on appeal. Presumably as a result of that case,
Section 83.595 was subsequently amended with the addition of the new
subsection (4) to specifically allow for the liquidated damages/early
termination fee remedy without worry as to allegations of double
dipping.
Greg
Greg Hass, Senior Counsel
Office of Law & Policy | FloridaRealtors(r)
7025 Augusta National Drive, Orlando, FL 32822
talk: 407.438.1400, ext. 2421
visit: http://www.floridarealtors.org http://www.floridarealtors.org
Attend Great American Realtor Days in Tallahassee
http://www.floridarealtors.org/realtordays
http://www.floridarealtors.org/realtordays April 12-13
LEGAL DISCLAIMER: The information transmitted is intended solely for
the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain
confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission,
dissemination or other use of or taking action in reliance upon this
information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is
prohibited. If you have received this email in error please contact the
sender and delete the material from any computer.
From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [
mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Mazor
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 11:48 AM
To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee'
Subject: [RPPTL LandTen] Residential Double recovery?
Both these statements are correct, right?
If a residential landlord retakes possession for the tenant's account
under FS 83.595(2), he has to credit the tenant with money received from
the replacement tenant, i.e., no double recovery.
But, if instead, the landlord gets two month's worth of liquidated
damages or early termination fee per FS 83.595(4) and quickly relets,
the landlord does not have to credit the tenant with money received from
the replacement tenant, i.e., there can be limited double recovery.
Jeffrey R. Mazor, Esq.
J. R. Mazor & Associates, P.A.
Presidential Circle Building
4000 Hollywood Blvd., Suite 265-s
Hollywood, FL 33021
Phone: 954-962-3500
Fax: 954-962-3560
Email: JMazor@Mazor.com
<< File: ATT6896336.txt >>
