[RPPTL LandTen] Termination of Month-to-Month Tenancy by Landlord Does Not Relieve Landlord of s.83.49 Notice Requirements(?)
Hi everyone,
I need some case law clarification:
Section 83.49(3) states: "Upon the vacating of the premises for
termination of the lease, if the landlord does not intend to impose a
claim on the security deposit, the landlord shall have 15 days to return
the security deposit together with interest if otherwise required, or
the landlord shall have 30 days to give the tenant written notice by
certified mail to the tenant's last known mailing address of his or her
intention to impose a claim on the deposit and the reason for imposing
the claim." (emphasis added)
Section 83.49(5) states: "Except when otherwise provided by the terms of
a written lease, any tenant who vacates or abandons the premises prior
to the expiration of the term specified in the written lease, or any
tenant who vacates or abandons premises which are the subject of a
tenancy from week to week, month to month, quarter to quarter, or year
to year, shall give at least 7 days' written notice by certified mail or
personal delivery to the landlord prior to vacating or abandoning the
premises which notice shall include the address where the tenant may be
reached. Failure to give such notice shall relieve the landlord of the
notice requirement of paragraph (3)(a) but shall not waive any right the
tenant may have to the security deposit or any part of it."
Section 83.56(6) states: "if the rental agreement is terminated, the
landlord shall comply with s. 83.49(3)."
It seems evident, to me at least, that from a collective plain reading
of the statute, if the landlord (or even tenant if done properly)
terminates a month-to-month tenancy (rather than the tenant simply
vacating or abandoning the premises without sufficient notice), then the
tenant's failure to provide the landlord with 7 days' notice including a
forwarding address prior to vacating does not relieve the landlord of
his/her duty to comply with the notice requirements set forth in section
83.49(3). This seems to be the only logical interpretation, the
rationale for the exception to the general rule being (based on my
analysis) that a landlord cannot be expected to send a notice to a
tenant if s/he does not know that the tenant vacated.
However, I have not been able to find any case law on point here. Can
anyone point me in the right direction?
Thanks,
Joe
--
Joseph S. Hughes, Esq.
The Law Office of Joseph Hughes P.A.
515 E. Las Olas Blvd. Ste 120
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Cell: (413) 687-2093
Office: (954)256-5125
Fax: (954) 256-5126
http://www.joehugheslaw.com
The information contained in this email may be attorney privileged and
confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or
entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient of this
message or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please
immediately alert the sender by telephone or reply e-mail and delete
this message and any attachments.
Here is an article I wrote a while back for my newsletter.
The danger of using the exception is that the tenant, once they find out they needed to give 7 day’s notice and a forwarding can fabricate the notice and say they gave it to the landlord by hand.
I litigated one against an attorney, let the attorney go on and on and nailed him on the failure of his client to give the 7 day’s written notice and forwarding address. He failed to know the law. Ended the case fast.
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 Joseph S. Hughes, Esq.
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2016 2:08 PM
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Subject: [RPPTL LandTen] Termination of Month-to-Month Tenancy by Landlord Does Not Relieve Landlord of s.83.49 Notice Requirements(?)
Hi everyone,
I need some case law clarification:
Section 83.49(3) states: "Upon the vacating of the premises for termination of the lease, if the landlord does not intend to impose a claim on the security deposit, the landlord shall have 15 days to return the security deposit together with interest if otherwise required, or the landlord shall have 30 days to give the tenant written notice by certified mail to the tenant’s last known mailing address of his or her intention to impose a claim on the deposit and the reason for imposing the claim." (emphasis added)
Section 83.49(5) states: "Except when otherwise provided by the terms of a written lease, any tenant who vacates or abandons the premises prior to the expiration of the term specified in the written lease, or any tenant who vacates or abandons premises which are the subject of a tenancy from week to week, month to month, quarter to quarter, or year to year, shall give at least 7 days’ written notice by certified mail or personal delivery to the landlord prior to vacating or abandoning the premises which notice shall include the address where the tenant may be reached. Failure to give such notice shall relieve the landlord of the notice requirement of paragraph (3)(a) but shall not waive any right the tenant may have to the security deposit or any part of it."
Section 83.56(6) states: “if the rental agreement is terminated, the landlord shall comply with s. 83.49(3)."
It seems evident, to me at least, that from a collective plain reading of the statute, if the landlord (or even tenant if done properly) terminates a month-to-month tenancy (rather than the tenant simply vacating or abandoning the premises without sufficient notice), then the tenant's failure to provide the landlord with 7 days' notice including a forwarding address prior to vacating does not relieve the landlord of his/her duty to comply with the notice requirements set forth in section 83.49(3). This seems to be the only logical interpretation, the rationale for the exception to the general rule being (based on my analysis) that a landlord cannot be expected to send a notice to a tenant if s/he does not know that the tenant vacated.
However, I have not been able to find any case law on point here. Can anyone point me in the right direction?
Thanks,
Joe
--
Joseph S. Hughes, Esq.
The Law Office of Joseph Hughes P.A.
515 E. Las Olas Blvd. Ste 120
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Cell: (413) 687-2093
Office: (954)256-5125
Fax: (954) 256-5126
http://www.joehugheslaw.com
The information contained in this email may be attorney privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by telephone or reply e-mail and delete this message and any attachments.
I believe the rationale is that it is possible that the landlord doesn’t know or know when that the tenant abandoned the rental property. It is possible that 30 days pass before the landlord knows the tenant disappeared. The rational that the landlord doesn’t know where to send the notice is unfounded since the landlord can send the notice to the tenant’s last known address.
Leonard P. Cabral, Esq.
leonardcabral@lenslaw.com
From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Joseph S. Hughes, Esq.
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2016 2:08 PM
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: [RPPTL LandTen] Termination of Month-to-Month Tenancy by Landlord Does Not Relieve Landlord of s.83.49 Notice Requirements(?)
Hi everyone,
I need some case law clarification:
Section 83.49(3) states: "Upon the vacating of the premises for termination of the lease, if the landlord does not intend to impose a claim on the security deposit, the landlord shall have 15 days to return the security deposit together with interest if otherwise required, or the landlord shall have 30 days to give the tenant written notice by certified mail to the tenant’s last known mailing address of his or her intention to impose a claim on the deposit and the reason for imposing the claim." (emphasis added)
Section 83.49(5) states: "Except when otherwise provided by the terms of a written lease, any tenant who vacates or abandons the premises prior to the expiration of the term specified in the written lease, or any tenant who vacates or abandons premises which are the subject of a tenancy from week to week, month to month, quarter to quarter, or year to year, shall give at least 7 days’ written notice by certified mail or personal delivery to the landlord prior to vacating or abandoning the premises which notice shall include the address where the tenant may be reached. Failure to give such notice shall relieve the landlord of the notice requirement of paragraph (3)(a) but shall not waive any right the tenant may have to the security deposit or any part of it."
Section 83.56(6) states: “if the rental agreement is terminated, the landlord shall comply with s. 83.49(3)."
It seems evident, to me at least, that from a collective plain reading of the statute, if the landlord (or even tenant if done properly) terminates a month-to-month tenancy (rather than the tenant simply vacating or abandoning the premises without sufficient notice), then the tenant's failure to provide the landlord with 7 days' notice including a forwarding address prior to vacating does not relieve the landlord of his/her duty to comply with the notice requirements set forth in section 83.49(3). This seems to be the only logical interpretation, the rationale for the exception to the general rule being (based on my analysis) that a landlord cannot be expected to send a notice to a tenant if s/he does not know that the tenant vacated.
However, I have not been able to find any case law on point here. Can anyone point me in the right direction?
Thanks,
Joe
Joseph S. Hughes, Esq.
The Law Office of Joseph Hughes P.A.
515 E. Las Olas Blvd. Ste 120
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Cell: (413) 687-2093
Office: (954)256-5125
Fax: (954) 256-5126
http://www.joehugheslaw.com
The information contained in this email may be attorney privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by telephone or reply e-mail and delete this message and any attachments.
Here is the only case on Fla. Law Weekly Supp.
Leonard P. Cabral, Esq.
leonardcabral@lenslaw.com
From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Leonard Cabral
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2016 2:31 PM
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Termination of Month-to-Month Tenancy by Landlord Does Not Relieve Landlord of s.83.49 Notice Requirements(?)
I believe the rationale is that it is possible that the landlord doesn’t know or know when that the tenant abandoned the rental property. It is possible that 30 days pass before the landlord knows the tenant disappeared. The rational that the landlord doesn’t know where to send the notice is unfounded since the landlord can send the notice to the tenant’s last known address.
Leonard P. Cabral, Esq.
leonardcabral@lenslaw.commailto:leonardcabral@lenslaw.com
From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Joseph S. Hughes, Esq.
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2016 2:08 PM
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee <landten@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org>
Subject: [RPPTL LandTen] Termination of Month-to-Month Tenancy by Landlord Does Not Relieve Landlord of s.83.49 Notice Requirements(?)
Hi everyone,
I need some case law clarification:
Section 83.49(3) states: "Upon the vacating of the premises for termination of the lease, if the landlord does not intend to impose a claim on the security deposit, the landlord shall have 15 days to return the security deposit together with interest if otherwise required, or the landlord shall have 30 days to give the tenant written notice by certified mail to the tenant’s last known mailing address of his or her intention to impose a claim on the deposit and the reason for imposing the claim." (emphasis added)
Section 83.49(5) states: "Except when otherwise provided by the terms of a written lease, any tenant who vacates or abandons the premises prior to the expiration of the term specified in the written lease, or any tenant who vacates or abandons premises which are the subject of a tenancy from week to week, month to month, quarter to quarter, or year to year, shall give at least 7 days’ written notice by certified mail or personal delivery to the landlord prior to vacating or abandoning the premises which notice shall include the address where the tenant may be reached. Failure to give such notice shall relieve the landlord of the notice requirement of paragraph (3)(a) but shall not waive any right the tenant may have to the security deposit or any part of it."
Section 83.56(6) states: “if the rental agreement is terminated, the landlord shall comply with s. 83.49(3)."
It seems evident, to me at least, that from a collective plain reading of the statute, if the landlord (or even tenant if done properly) terminates a month-to-month tenancy (rather than the tenant simply vacating or abandoning the premises without sufficient notice), then the tenant's failure to provide the landlord with 7 days' notice including a forwarding address prior to vacating does not relieve the landlord of his/her duty to comply with the notice requirements set forth in section 83.49(3). This seems to be the only logical interpretation, the rationale for the exception to the general rule being (based on my analysis) that a landlord cannot be expected to send a notice to a tenant if s/he does not know that the tenant vacated.
However, I have not been able to find any case law on point here. Can anyone point me in the right direction?
Thanks,
Joe
Joseph S. Hughes, Esq.
The Law Office of Joseph Hughes P.A.
515 E. Las Olas Blvd. Ste 120
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Cell: (413) 687-2093
Office: (954)256-5125
Fax: (954) 256-5126
http://www.joehugheslaw.com
The information contained in this email may be attorney privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by telephone or reply e-mail and delete this message and any attachments.
Have fun!
From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Leonard Cabral
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2016 2:31 PM
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Termination of Month-to-Month Tenancy by Landlord Does Not Relieve Landlord of s.83.49 Notice Requirements(?)
I believe the rationale is that it is possible that the landlord doesn’t know or know when that the tenant abandoned the rental property. It is possible that 30 days pass before the landlord knows the tenant disappeared. The rational that the landlord doesn’t know where to send the notice is unfounded since the landlord can send the notice to the tenant’s last known address.
Leonard P. Cabral, Esq.
leonardcabral@lenslaw.commailto:leonardcabral@lenslaw.com
From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Joseph S. Hughes, Esq.
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2016 2:08 PM
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee <landten@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org>
Subject: [RPPTL LandTen] Termination of Month-to-Month Tenancy by Landlord Does Not Relieve Landlord of s.83.49 Notice Requirements(?)
Hi everyone,
I need some case law clarification:
Section 83.49(3) states: "Upon the vacating of the premises for termination of the lease, if the landlord does not intend to impose a claim on the security deposit, the landlord shall have 15 days to return the security deposit together with interest if otherwise required, or the landlord shall have 30 days to give the tenant written notice by certified mail to the tenant’s last known mailing address of his or her intention to impose a claim on the deposit and the reason for imposing the claim." (emphasis added)
Section 83.49(5) states: "Except when otherwise provided by the terms of a written lease, any tenant who vacates or abandons the premises prior to the expiration of the term specified in the written lease, or any tenant who vacates or abandons premises which are the subject of a tenancy from week to week, month to month, quarter to quarter, or year to year, shall give at least 7 days’ written notice by certified mail or personal delivery to the landlord prior to vacating or abandoning the premises which notice shall include the address where the tenant may be reached. Failure to give such notice shall relieve the landlord of the notice requirement of paragraph (3)(a) but shall not waive any right the tenant may have to the security deposit or any part of it."
Section 83.56(6) states: “if the rental agreement is terminated, the landlord shall comply with s. 83.49(3)."
It seems evident, to me at least, that from a collective plain reading of the statute, if the landlord (or even tenant if done properly) terminates a month-to-month tenancy (rather than the tenant simply vacating or abandoning the premises without sufficient notice), then the tenant's failure to provide the landlord with 7 days' notice including a forwarding address prior to vacating does not relieve the landlord of his/her duty to comply with the notice requirements set forth in section 83.49(3). This seems to be the only logical interpretation, the rationale for the exception to the general rule being (based on my analysis) that a landlord cannot be expected to send a notice to a tenant if s/he does not know that the tenant vacated.
However, I have not been able to find any case law on point here. Can anyone point me in the right direction?
Thanks,
Joe
Joseph S. Hughes, Esq.
The Law Office of Joseph Hughes P.A.
515 E. Las Olas Blvd. Ste 120
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Cell: (413) 687-2093
Office: (954)256-5125
Fax: (954) 256-5126
http://www.joehugheslaw.com
The information contained in this email may be attorney privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by telephone or reply e-mail and delete this message and any attachments.