Empathy List Archives

NB

Neil B. Shoter

Tue, Jan 31, 2012 5:20 PM

We received the following inquiry regarding a residential eviction matter. While our ListServe is not intended to provide a free legal forum for advice to the community at large, if you wish to offer a response to Mr. Haas on his question of the applicability of unlawful detainer to his scenario, I invite you to email Mr. Haas directly.

Neil

From: Lee Haas [mailto:lee@haas-castillo.com]
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2012 12:11 PM
To: Meyer, George J.
Cc: Adams, Darlene
Subject: Chapter 82 issues

Mr. Meyer,

I've practiced law in Clearwater for the past 28 years, handling business, construction, and real estate litigation, but only this last summer had my first unlawful detainer case, referred by a fellow attorney. I now have another situation that appears tailor-made to resolution by filing an unlawful entry and detainer case, except for the fact that it is residential property. The legislature amended the statute in 1977 to eliminate residential cases from the scope of the statute, but it is not clear to me what the alternative is. I am contacting you as chair of RPPTL on the suggestion of a judge who formerly served in the legislature in the hope that you may have some insight into the statute or a means of suggesting an amendment to the statute that would actually get considered.

The facts of my latest case are that my client left town, leaving keys to a rental property with a friend (or so she thought). When she returned, she found that this "friend" had signed a lease to the property as landlord with a convicted felon for two years with 0 rent except cleaning out the place. The felon proceeded to throw all my client's stuff out of her house, and has probably kept, sold, or pawned her valuables. Unlawful entry and detainer proceedings would be the quickest way for my client to regain possession - but it is inapplicable to residential matters. The person doesn't qualify as a tenant as defined in 83.43(4), because he isn't entitled to occupy under a rental agreement, so I question whether part II of Chapter 83 provides the appropriate remedy. He's arguably a trespasser, but chapter 66 doesn't apply because he's not claiming ownership.

I have to believe with the recent surge in foreclosures and empty properties, as well as from some of the news stories, that this issue has come up before. What have you heard on how lawyers have dealt with these types of situations? Has anyone else suggested that maybe chapter 82 needs to be tweaked to permit its use in certain types of residential matters?

Lee L. Haas, Esquire
Haas & Castillo, P.A.
Attorneys At Law
19321-C U.S. Hwy 19 N, Ste. 401
Clearwater, Florida 33764
(727) 535-4544 telephone
(727) 535-1855 facsimile
lee@haas-castillo.com mailto:lee@haas-castillo.com

[cid:image001.jpg@01CCE012.AE222C10]

Neil B. Shoter
Partner / LEED Accredited Professional

Shutts & Bowen LLP
1100 CityPlace Tower, 525 Okeechobee Boulevard | West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Direct: (561) 650-8535 | Fax: (561) 822-5525
E-Mailmailto:NShoter@shutts.com | Biographyhttp://www.shutts.com/attorneys-Neil-Shoter.html | V-Cardhttp://www.shutts.com/vcard-181.vcf | Websitehttp://www.shutts.com

</pre>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. The information in this email transmission is privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, nor the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination or copying of this transmission (including any attachments) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender by email reply. Thank you. <pre>

We received the following inquiry regarding a residential eviction matter. While our ListServe is not intended to provide a free legal forum for advice to the community at large, if you wish to offer a response to Mr. Haas on his question of the applicability of unlawful detainer to his scenario, I invite you to email Mr. Haas directly. Neil From: Lee Haas [mailto:lee@haas-castillo.com] Sent: Friday, January 27, 2012 12:11 PM To: Meyer, George J. Cc: Adams, Darlene Subject: Chapter 82 issues Mr. Meyer, I've practiced law in Clearwater for the past 28 years, handling business, construction, and real estate litigation, but only this last summer had my first unlawful detainer case, referred by a fellow attorney. I now have another situation that appears tailor-made to resolution by filing an unlawful entry and detainer case, except for the fact that it is residential property. The legislature amended the statute in 1977 to eliminate residential cases from the scope of the statute, but it is not clear to me what the alternative is. I am contacting you as chair of RPPTL on the suggestion of a judge who formerly served in the legislature in the hope that you may have some insight into the statute or a means of suggesting an amendment to the statute that would actually get considered. The facts of my latest case are that my client left town, leaving keys to a rental property with a friend (or so she thought). When she returned, she found that this "friend" had signed a lease to the property as landlord with a convicted felon for two years with 0 rent except cleaning out the place. The felon proceeded to throw all my client's stuff out of her house, and has probably kept, sold, or pawned her valuables. Unlawful entry and detainer proceedings would be the quickest way for my client to regain possession - but it is inapplicable to residential matters. The person doesn't qualify as a tenant as defined in 83.43(4), because he isn't entitled to occupy under a rental agreement, so I question whether part II of Chapter 83 provides the appropriate remedy. He's arguably a trespasser, but chapter 66 doesn't apply because he's not claiming ownership. I have to believe with the recent surge in foreclosures and empty properties, as well as from some of the news stories, that this issue has come up before. What have you heard on how lawyers have dealt with these types of situations? Has anyone else suggested that maybe chapter 82 needs to be tweaked to permit its use in certain types of residential matters? Lee L. Haas, Esquire Haas & Castillo, P.A. Attorneys At Law 19321-C U.S. Hwy 19 N, Ste. 401 Clearwater, Florida 33764 (727) 535-4544 telephone (727) 535-1855 facsimile lee@haas-castillo.com<mailto:lee@haas-castillo.com> [cid:image001.jpg@01CCE012.AE222C10] Neil B. Shoter Partner / LEED Accredited Professional ________________________________ Shutts & Bowen LLP 1100 CityPlace Tower, 525 Okeechobee Boulevard | West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Direct: (561) 650-8535 | Fax: (561) 822-5525 E-Mail<mailto:NShoter@shutts.com> | Biography<http://www.shutts.com/attorneys-Neil-Shoter.html> | V-Card<http://www.shutts.com/vcard-181.vcf> | Website<http://www.shutts.com> </pre>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. The information in this email transmission is privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, nor the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination or copying of this transmission (including any attachments) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender by email reply. Thank you. <pre>

CS

Cary Sabol

Tue, Jan 31, 2012 7:10 PM

Neil,

I recently handled two Unlawful Entry & Detainer cases in Palm Beach County and proceeded under Chapter 82 and both cases went very smoothly and we were able to have the trespassers removed in a relatively timely manner. Sec. 82.03 specifically states these matters are entitled to summary procedure under Sec. 51.011.

Regarding his concern that this statute does not apply to residential properties, I would respectfully disagree. Although Sec. 82.02(2) states: "This section shall not apply with regard to residential tenancies," my argument is that this is not a "tenancy." It doesn't say the statute doesn't apply to "residential properties" it specifically says "tenancies" which I read to mean that you have to use Ch. 83 if a "tenancy" has been created. In my humble opinion, illegally obtaining possession and occupancy of a property (residential or commercial) does not create a "tenancy." Sec. 83.43(4) defines a "tenant" as "any persona entitled to occupy a dwelling unit under a rental agreement." Since there is no rental agreement, the occupant cannot be a "tenant" and therefore, the situation is not a residential "tenancy."

Based on the above roundabout analysis, I would (and did successfully) argue that Ch. 82 does apply to this situation.

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.

From: Neil B. Shoter NShoter@shutts.com
To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee' landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 12:20 PM
Subject: [RPPTL LandTen] Unlawful Detainer issue

We
received the following inquiry regarding a residential eviction matter. While
our ListServe is not intended to provide a free legal forum for advice to the
community at large, if you wish to offer a response to Mr. Haas on his question
of the applicability of unlawful detainer to his scenario, I invite you to
email Mr. Haas directly.

Neil

From:Lee Haas
[mailto:lee@haas-castillo.com]
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2012 12:11 PM
To: Meyer, George J.
Cc: Adams, Darlene
Subject: Chapter 82 issues

Mr.
Meyer,

I’ve
practiced law in Clearwater for the past 28 years, handling business,
construction, and real estate litigation, but only this last summer had my
first unlawful detainer case, referred by a fellow attorney. I now have
another situation that appears tailor-made to resolution by filing an unlawful
entry and detainer case, except for the fact that it is residential
property. The legislature amended the statute in 1977 to eliminate
residential cases from the scope of the statute, but it is not clear to me what
the alternative is. I am contacting you as chair of RPPTL on the
suggestion of a judge who formerly served in the legislature in the hope that
you may have some insight into the statute or a means of suggesting an
amendment to the statute that would actually get considered.

The
facts of my latest case are that my client left town, leaving keys to a rental
property with a friend (or so she thought). When she returned, she found
that this “friend” had signed a lease to the property as landlord
with a convicted felon for two years with 0 rent except cleaning out the
place. The felon proceeded to throw all my client’s stuff out of
her house, and has probably kept, sold, or pawned her valuables. Unlawful
entry and detainer proceedings would be the quickest way for my client to
regain possession – but it is inapplicable to residential matters.
The person doesn’t qualify as a tenant as defined in 83.43(4), because he
isn’t entitled to occupy under a rental agreement, so I question whether
part II of Chapter 83 provides the appropriate remedy. He’s
arguably a trespasser, but chapter 66 doesn’t apply because he’s
not claiming ownership.

I
have to believe with the recent surge in foreclosures and empty properties, as
well as from some of the news stories, that this issue has come up
before. What have you heard on how lawyers have dealt with these types of
situations? Has anyone else suggested that maybe chapter 82 needs to be
tweaked to permit its use in certain types of residential matters?

Lee
L. Haas, Esquire
Haas &
Castillo, P.A.
Attorneys
At Law
19321-C U.S. Hwy 19 N, Ste.
401
Clearwater, Florida 33764
(727) 535-4544 telephone
(727) 535-1855 facsimile
lee@haas-castillo.com

Neil B. Shoter
Partner / LEED Accredited Professional

Shutts& Bowen LLP
1100 CityPlace Tower, 525 Okeechobee Boulevard | West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Direct: (561) 650-8535| Fax: (561) 822-5525
E-Mail|Biography | V-Card | Website

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.

The information in this email transmission is privileged
and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient,
nor the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to
the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
dissemination or copying of this transmission (including
any attachments) is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this email in error, please notify the sender by
email reply. Thank you.

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

Neil, I recently handled two Unlawful Entry & Detainer cases in Palm Beach County and proceeded under Chapter 82 and both cases went very smoothly and we were able to have the trespassers removed in a relatively timely manner. Sec. 82.03 specifically states these matters are entitled to summary procedure under Sec. 51.011. Regarding his concern that this statute does not apply to residential properties, I would respectfully disagree. Although Sec. 82.02(2) states: "This section shall not apply with regard to residential tenancies," my argument is that this is not a "tenancy." It doesn't say the statute doesn't apply to "residential properties" it specifically says "tenancies" which I read to mean that you have to use Ch. 83 if a "tenancy" has been created. In my humble opinion, illegally obtaining possession and occupancy of a property (residential or commercial) does not create a "tenancy." Sec. 83.43(4) defines a "tenant" as "any persona entitled to occupy a dwelling unit under a rental agreement." Since there is no rental agreement, the occupant cannot be a "tenant" and therefore, the situation is not a residential "tenancy." Based on the above roundabout analysis, I would (and did successfully) argue that Ch. 82 does apply to this situation. 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. ________________________________ From: Neil B. Shoter <NShoter@shutts.com> To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee' <landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org> Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 12:20 PM Subject: [RPPTL LandTen] Unlawful Detainer issue We received the following inquiry regarding a residential eviction matter. While our ListServe is not intended to provide a free legal forum for advice to the community at large, if you wish to offer a response to Mr. Haas on his question of the applicability of unlawful detainer to his scenario, I invite you to email Mr. Haas directly. Neil From:Lee Haas [mailto:lee@haas-castillo.com] Sent: Friday, January 27, 2012 12:11 PM To: Meyer, George J. Cc: Adams, Darlene Subject: Chapter 82 issues Mr. Meyer, I’ve practiced law in Clearwater for the past 28 years, handling business, construction, and real estate litigation, but only this last summer had my first unlawful detainer case, referred by a fellow attorney. I now have another situation that appears tailor-made to resolution by filing an unlawful entry and detainer case, except for the fact that it is residential property. The legislature amended the statute in 1977 to eliminate residential cases from the scope of the statute, but it is not clear to me what the alternative is. I am contacting you as chair of RPPTL on the suggestion of a judge who formerly served in the legislature in the hope that you may have some insight into the statute or a means of suggesting an amendment to the statute that would actually get considered. The facts of my latest case are that my client left town, leaving keys to a rental property with a friend (or so she thought). When she returned, she found that this “friend” had signed a lease to the property as landlord with a convicted felon for two years with 0 rent except cleaning out the place. The felon proceeded to throw all my client’s stuff out of her house, and has probably kept, sold, or pawned her valuables. Unlawful entry and detainer proceedings would be the quickest way for my client to regain possession – but it is inapplicable to residential matters. The person doesn’t qualify as a tenant as defined in 83.43(4), because he isn’t entitled to occupy under a rental agreement, so I question whether part II of Chapter 83 provides the appropriate remedy. He’s arguably a trespasser, but chapter 66 doesn’t apply because he’s not claiming ownership. I have to believe with the recent surge in foreclosures and empty properties, as well as from some of the news stories, that this issue has come up before. What have you heard on how lawyers have dealt with these types of situations? Has anyone else suggested that maybe chapter 82 needs to be tweaked to permit its use in certain types of residential matters? Lee L. Haas, Esquire Haas & Castillo, P.A. Attorneys At Law 19321-C U.S. Hwy 19 N, Ste. 401 Clearwater, Florida 33764 (727) 535-4544 telephone (727) 535-1855 facsimile lee@haas-castillo.com Neil B. Shoter Partner / LEED Accredited Professional ________________________________ Shutts& Bowen LLP 1100 CityPlace Tower, 525 Okeechobee Boulevard | West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Direct: (561) 650-8535| Fax: (561) 822-5525 E-Mail|Biography | V-Card | Website 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. The information in this email transmission is privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, nor the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination or copying of this transmission (including any attachments) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender by email reply. Thank you. _______________________________________________ landten mailing list landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/landten

NB

Neil B. Shoter

Tue, Jan 31, 2012 7:25 PM

Cary, well said. Thanks for the input.

[cid:image001.jpg@01CCE024.31AA2360]

Neil B. Shoter
Partner / LEED Accredited Professional

Shutts & Bowen LLP
1100 CityPlace Tower, 525 Okeechobee Boulevard | West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Direct: (561) 650-8535 | Fax: (561) 822-5525
E-Mailmailto:NShoter@shutts.com | Biographyhttp://www.shutts.com/attorneys-Neil-Shoter.html | V-Cardhttp://www.shutts.com/vcard-181.vcf | Websitehttp://www.shutts.com

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Cary Sabol
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 2:10 PM
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Unlawful Detainer issue

Neil,

I recently handled two Unlawful Entry & Detainer cases in Palm Beach County and proceeded under Chapter 82 and both cases went very smoothly and we were able to have the trespassers removed in a relatively timely manner. Sec. 82.03 specifically states these matters are entitled to summary procedure under Sec. 51.011.

Regarding his concern that this statute does not apply to residential properties, I would respectfully disagree. Although Sec. 82.02(2) states: "This section shall not apply with regard to residential tenancies," my argument is that this is not a "tenancy." It doesn't say the statute doesn't apply to "residential properties" it specifically says "tenancies" which I read to mean that you have to use Ch. 83 if a "tenancy" has been created. In my humble opinion, illegally obtaining possession and occupancy of a property (residential or commercial) does not create a "tenancy." Sec. 83.43(4) defines a "tenant" as "any persona entitled to occupy a dwelling unit under a rental agreement." Since there is no rental agreement, the occupant cannot be a "tenant" and therefore, the situation is not a residential "tenancy."

Based on the above roundabout analysis, I would (and did successfully) argue that Ch. 82 does apply to this situation.

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.

From: Neil B. Shoter NShoter@shutts.com
To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee' landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 12:20 PM
Subject: [RPPTL LandTen] Unlawful Detainer issue

We received the following inquiry regarding a residential eviction matter. While our ListServe is not intended to provide a free legal forum for advice to the community at large, if you wish to offer a response to Mr. Haas on his question of the applicability of unlawful detainer to his scenario, I invite you to email Mr. Haas directly.

Neil

From: Lee Haas [mailto:lee@haas-castillo.com]
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2012 12:11 PM
To: Meyer, George J.
Cc: Adams, Darlene
Subject: Chapter 82 issues

Mr. Meyer,

I’ve practiced law in Clearwater for the past 28 years, handling business, construction, and real estate litigation, but only this last summer had my first unlawful detainer case, referred by a fellow attorney. I now have another situation that appears tailor-made to resolution by filing an unlawful entry and detainer case, except for the fact that it is residential property. The legislature amended the statute in 1977 to eliminate residential cases from the scope of the statute, but it is not clear to me what the alternative is. I am contacting you as chair of RPPTL on the suggestion of a judge who formerly served in the legislature in the hope that you may have some insight into the statute or a means of suggesting an amendment to the statute that would actually get considered.

The facts of my latest case are that my client left town, leaving keys to a rental property with a friend (or so she thought). When she returned, she found that this “friend” had signed a lease to the property as landlord with a convicted felon for two years with 0 rent except cleaning out the place. The felon proceeded to throw all my client’s stuff out of her house, and has probably kept, sold, or pawned her valuables. Unlawful entry and detainer proceedings would be the quickest way for my client to regain possession – but it is inapplicable to residential matters. The person doesn’t qualify as a tenant as defined in 83.43(4), because he isn’t entitled to occupy under a rental agreement, so I question whether part II of Chapter 83 provides the appropriate remedy. He’s arguably a trespasser, but chapter 66 doesn’t apply because he’s not claiming ownership.

I have to believe with the recent surge in foreclosures and empty properties, as well as from some of the news stories, that this issue has come up before. What have you heard on how lawyers have dealt with these types of situations? Has anyone else suggested that maybe chapter 82 needs to be tweaked to permit its use in certain types of residential matters?

Lee L. Haas, Esquire
Haas & Castillo, P.A.
Attorneys At Law
19321-C U.S. Hwy 19 N, Ste. 401
Clearwater, Florida 33764
(727) 535-4544 telephone
(727) 535-1855 facsimile
lee@haas-castillo.com mailto:lee@haas-castillo.com

[cid:image001.jpg@01CCE024.31AA2360]

Neil B. Shoter
Partner / LEED Accredited Professional

Shutts & Bowen LLP
1100 CityPlace Tower, 525 Okeechobee Boulevard | West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Direct: (561) 650-8535 | Fax: (561) 822-5525
E-Mailmailto:NShoter@shutts.com | Biographyhttp://www.shutts.com/attorneys-Neil-Shoter.html | V-Cardhttp://www.shutts.com/vcard-181.vcf | Websitehttp://www.shutts.com

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.

The information in this email transmission is privileged
and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient,
nor the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to
the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
dissemination or copying of this transmission (including
any attachments) is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this email in error, please notify the sender by
email reply. Thank you.

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

Cary, well said. Thanks for the input. [cid:image001.jpg@01CCE024.31AA2360] Neil B. Shoter Partner / LEED Accredited Professional ________________________________ Shutts & Bowen LLP 1100 CityPlace Tower, 525 Okeechobee Boulevard | West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Direct: (561) 650-8535 | Fax: (561) 822-5525 E-Mail<mailto:NShoter@shutts.com> | Biography<http://www.shutts.com/attorneys-Neil-Shoter.html> | V-Card<http://www.shutts.com/vcard-181.vcf> | Website<http://www.shutts.com> From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Cary Sabol Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 2:10 PM To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Unlawful Detainer issue Neil, I recently handled two Unlawful Entry & Detainer cases in Palm Beach County and proceeded under Chapter 82 and both cases went very smoothly and we were able to have the trespassers removed in a relatively timely manner. Sec. 82.03 specifically states these matters are entitled to summary procedure under Sec. 51.011. Regarding his concern that this statute does not apply to residential properties, I would respectfully disagree. Although Sec. 82.02(2) states: "This section shall not apply with regard to residential tenancies," my argument is that this is not a "tenancy." It doesn't say the statute doesn't apply to "residential properties" it specifically says "tenancies" which I read to mean that you have to use Ch. 83 if a "tenancy" has been created. In my humble opinion, illegally obtaining possession and occupancy of a property (residential or commercial) does not create a "tenancy." Sec. 83.43(4) defines a "tenant" as "any persona entitled to occupy a dwelling unit under a rental agreement." Since there is no rental agreement, the occupant cannot be a "tenant" and therefore, the situation is not a residential "tenancy." Based on the above roundabout analysis, I would (and did successfully) argue that Ch. 82 does apply to this situation. 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. ________________________________ From: Neil B. Shoter <NShoter@shutts.com> To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee' <landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org> Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 12:20 PM Subject: [RPPTL LandTen] Unlawful Detainer issue We received the following inquiry regarding a residential eviction matter. While our ListServe is not intended to provide a free legal forum for advice to the community at large, if you wish to offer a response to Mr. Haas on his question of the applicability of unlawful detainer to his scenario, I invite you to email Mr. Haas directly. Neil From: Lee Haas [mailto:lee@haas-castillo.com] Sent: Friday, January 27, 2012 12:11 PM To: Meyer, George J. Cc: Adams, Darlene Subject: Chapter 82 issues Mr. Meyer, I’ve practiced law in Clearwater for the past 28 years, handling business, construction, and real estate litigation, but only this last summer had my first unlawful detainer case, referred by a fellow attorney. I now have another situation that appears tailor-made to resolution by filing an unlawful entry and detainer case, except for the fact that it is residential property. The legislature amended the statute in 1977 to eliminate residential cases from the scope of the statute, but it is not clear to me what the alternative is. I am contacting you as chair of RPPTL on the suggestion of a judge who formerly served in the legislature in the hope that you may have some insight into the statute or a means of suggesting an amendment to the statute that would actually get considered. The facts of my latest case are that my client left town, leaving keys to a rental property with a friend (or so she thought). When she returned, she found that this “friend” had signed a lease to the property as landlord with a convicted felon for two years with 0 rent except cleaning out the place. The felon proceeded to throw all my client’s stuff out of her house, and has probably kept, sold, or pawned her valuables. Unlawful entry and detainer proceedings would be the quickest way for my client to regain possession – but it is inapplicable to residential matters. The person doesn’t qualify as a tenant as defined in 83.43(4), because he isn’t entitled to occupy under a rental agreement, so I question whether part II of Chapter 83 provides the appropriate remedy. He’s arguably a trespasser, but chapter 66 doesn’t apply because he’s not claiming ownership. I have to believe with the recent surge in foreclosures and empty properties, as well as from some of the news stories, that this issue has come up before. What have you heard on how lawyers have dealt with these types of situations? Has anyone else suggested that maybe chapter 82 needs to be tweaked to permit its use in certain types of residential matters? Lee L. Haas, Esquire Haas & Castillo, P.A. Attorneys At Law 19321-C U.S. Hwy 19 N, Ste. 401 Clearwater, Florida 33764 (727) 535-4544 telephone (727) 535-1855 facsimile lee@haas-castillo.com<mailto:lee@haas-castillo.com> [cid:image001.jpg@01CCE024.31AA2360] Neil B. Shoter Partner / LEED Accredited Professional ________________________________ Shutts & Bowen LLP 1100 CityPlace Tower, 525 Okeechobee Boulevard | West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Direct: (561) 650-8535 | Fax: (561) 822-5525 E-Mail<mailto:NShoter@shutts.com> | Biography<http://www.shutts.com/attorneys-Neil-Shoter.html> | V-Card<http://www.shutts.com/vcard-181.vcf> | Website<http://www.shutts.com> 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. The information in this email transmission is privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, nor the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination or copying of this transmission (including any attachments) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender by email reply. Thank you. _______________________________________________ landten mailing list landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org> http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/landten

AM

Alberto M Cardet

Tue, Jan 31, 2012 7:31 PM

I have had the same experience in Miami-Dade as Carol and agree with her analysis.

Alberto M. Cardet, P.A.

1330 Coral Way #301

Miami FL 33145

305-403-7783

305-403-7824 (fax)

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Cary Sabol
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 2:10 PM
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Unlawful Detainer issue

Neil,

I recently handled two Unlawful Entry & Detainer cases in Palm Beach County and proceeded under Chapter 82 and both cases went very smoothly and we were able to have the trespassers removed in a relatively timely manner. Sec. 82.03 specifically states these matters are entitled to summary procedure under Sec. 51.011.

Regarding his concern that this statute does not apply to residential properties, I would respectfully disagree. Although Sec. 82.02(2) states: "This section shall not apply with regard to residential tenancies," my argument is that this is not a "tenancy." It doesn't say the statute doesn't apply to "residential properties" it specifically says "tenancies" which I read to mean that you have to use Ch. 83 if a "tenancy" has been created. In my humble opinion, illegally obtaining possession and occupancy of a property (residential or commercial) does not create a "tenancy." Sec. 83.43(4) defines a "tenant" as "any persona entitled to occupy a dwelling unit under a rental agreement." Since there is no rental agreement, the occupant cannot be a "tenant" and therefore, the situation is not a residential "tenancy."

Based on the above roundabout analysis, I would (and did successfully) argue that Ch. 82 does apply to this situation.

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.

From: Neil B. Shoter NShoter@shutts.com
To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee' landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 12:20 PM
Subject: [RPPTL LandTen] Unlawful Detainer issue

We received the following inquiry regarding a residential eviction matter. While our ListServe is not intended to provide a free legal forum for advice to the community at large, if you wish to offer a response to Mr. Haas on his question of the applicability of unlawful detainer to his scenario, I invite you to email Mr. Haas directly.

Neil

From: Lee Haas [mailto:lee@haas-castillo.com]
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2012 12:11 PM
To: Meyer, George J.
Cc: Adams, Darlene
Subject: Chapter 82 issues

Mr. Meyer,

I’ve practiced law in Clearwater for the past 28 years, handling business, construction, and real estate litigation, but only this last summer had my first unlawful detainer case, referred by a fellow attorney. I now have another situation that appears tailor-made to resolution by filing an unlawful entry and detainer case, except for the fact that it is residential property. The legislature amended the statute in 1977 to eliminate residential cases from the scope of the statute, but it is not clear to me what the alternative is. I am contacting you as chair of RPPTL on the suggestion of a judge who formerly served in the legislature in the hope that you may have some insight into the statute or a means of suggesting an amendment to the statute that would actually get considered.

The facts of my latest case are that my client left town, leaving keys to a rental property with a friend (or so she thought). When she returned, she found that this “friend” had signed a lease to the property as landlord with a convicted felon for two years with 0 rent except cleaning out the place. The felon proceeded to throw all my client’s stuff out of her house, and has probably kept, sold, or pawned her valuables. Unlawful entry and detainer proceedings would be the quickest way for my client to regain possession – but it is inapplicable to residential matters. The person doesn’t qualify as a tenant as defined in 83.43(4), because he isn’t entitled to occupy under a rental agreement, so I question whether part II of Chapter 83 provides the appropriate remedy. He’s arguably a trespasser, but chapter 66 doesn’t apply because he’s not claiming ownership.

I have to believe with the recent surge in foreclosures and empty properties, as well as from some of the news stories, that this issue has come up before. What have you heard on how lawyers have dealt with these types of situations? Has anyone else suggested that maybe chapter 82 needs to be tweaked to permit its use in certain types of residential matters?

Lee L. Haas, Esquire

Haas & Castillo, P.A.

Attorneys At Law

19321-C U.S. Hwy 19 N, Ste. 401

Clearwater, Florida 33764

(727) 535-4544 telephone

(727) 535-1855 facsimile

lee@haas-castillo.com

http://www.shutts.com/shutts100.jpg

Neil B. Shoter
Partner / LEED Accredited Professional

Shutts & Bowen LLP
1100 CityPlace Tower, 525 Okeechobee Boulevard | West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Direct: (561) 650-8535 | Fax: (561) 822-5525
mailto:NShoter@shutts.com E-Mail | http://www.shutts.com/attorneys-Neil-Shoter.html Biography | http://www.shutts.com/vcard-181.vcf V-Card | http://www.shutts.com Website

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.

The information in this email transmission is privileged
and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient,
nor the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to
the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
dissemination or copying of this transmission (including
any attachments) is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this email in error, please notify the sender by
email reply. Thank you.

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

I have had the same experience in Miami-Dade as Carol and agree with her analysis. Alberto M. Cardet, P.A. 1330 Coral Way #301 Miami FL 33145 305-403-7783 305-403-7824 (fax) From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Cary Sabol Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 2:10 PM To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Unlawful Detainer issue Neil, I recently handled two Unlawful Entry & Detainer cases in Palm Beach County and proceeded under Chapter 82 and both cases went very smoothly and we were able to have the trespassers removed in a relatively timely manner. Sec. 82.03 specifically states these matters are entitled to summary procedure under Sec. 51.011. Regarding his concern that this statute does not apply to residential properties, I would respectfully disagree. Although Sec. 82.02(2) states: "This section shall not apply with regard to residential tenancies," my argument is that this is not a "tenancy." It doesn't say the statute doesn't apply to "residential properties" it specifically says "tenancies" which I read to mean that you have to use Ch. 83 if a "tenancy" has been created. In my humble opinion, illegally obtaining possession and occupancy of a property (residential or commercial) does not create a "tenancy." Sec. 83.43(4) defines a "tenant" as "any persona entitled to occupy a dwelling unit under a rental agreement." Since there is no rental agreement, the occupant cannot be a "tenant" and therefore, the situation is not a residential "tenancy." Based on the above roundabout analysis, I would (and did successfully) argue that Ch. 82 does apply to this situation. 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. _____ From: Neil B. Shoter <NShoter@shutts.com> To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee' <landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org> Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 12:20 PM Subject: [RPPTL LandTen] Unlawful Detainer issue We received the following inquiry regarding a residential eviction matter. While our ListServe is not intended to provide a free legal forum for advice to the community at large, if you wish to offer a response to Mr. Haas on his question of the applicability of unlawful detainer to his scenario, I invite you to email Mr. Haas directly. Neil From: Lee Haas [mailto:lee@haas-castillo.com] Sent: Friday, January 27, 2012 12:11 PM To: Meyer, George J. Cc: Adams, Darlene Subject: Chapter 82 issues Mr. Meyer, I’ve practiced law in Clearwater for the past 28 years, handling business, construction, and real estate litigation, but only this last summer had my first unlawful detainer case, referred by a fellow attorney. I now have another situation that appears tailor-made to resolution by filing an unlawful entry and detainer case, except for the fact that it is residential property. The legislature amended the statute in 1977 to eliminate residential cases from the scope of the statute, but it is not clear to me what the alternative is. I am contacting you as chair of RPPTL on the suggestion of a judge who formerly served in the legislature in the hope that you may have some insight into the statute or a means of suggesting an amendment to the statute that would actually get considered. The facts of my latest case are that my client left town, leaving keys to a rental property with a friend (or so she thought). When she returned, she found that this “friend” had signed a lease to the property as landlord with a convicted felon for two years with 0 rent except cleaning out the place. The felon proceeded to throw all my client’s stuff out of her house, and has probably kept, sold, or pawned her valuables. Unlawful entry and detainer proceedings would be the quickest way for my client to regain possession – but it is inapplicable to residential matters. The person doesn’t qualify as a tenant as defined in 83.43(4), because he isn’t entitled to occupy under a rental agreement, so I question whether part II of Chapter 83 provides the appropriate remedy. He’s arguably a trespasser, but chapter 66 doesn’t apply because he’s not claiming ownership. I have to believe with the recent surge in foreclosures and empty properties, as well as from some of the news stories, that this issue has come up before. What have you heard on how lawyers have dealt with these types of situations? Has anyone else suggested that maybe chapter 82 needs to be tweaked to permit its use in certain types of residential matters? Lee L. Haas, Esquire Haas & Castillo, P.A. Attorneys At Law 19321-C U.S. Hwy 19 N, Ste. 401 Clearwater, Florida 33764 (727) 535-4544 telephone (727) 535-1855 facsimile lee@haas-castillo.com http://www.shutts.com/shutts100.jpg Neil B. Shoter Partner / LEED Accredited Professional _____ Shutts & Bowen LLP 1100 CityPlace Tower, 525 Okeechobee Boulevard | West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Direct: (561) 650-8535 | Fax: (561) 822-5525 <mailto:NShoter@shutts.com> E-Mail | <http://www.shutts.com/attorneys-Neil-Shoter.html> Biography | <http://www.shutts.com/vcard-181.vcf> V-Card | <http://www.shutts.com> Website 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. The information in this email transmission is privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, nor the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination or copying of this transmission (including any attachments) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender by email reply. Thank you. _______________________________________________ landten mailing list landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/landten

S

sfrank (at) saflaw.com

Fri, Feb 3, 2012 3:46 PM

Quick question while I am out of the office. Residential lease is almost up. Landlord wants to inspect the premises (lease allows it in accordance with Ch. 83).

Numerous messages for tenant were not returned. LL mailed her last week - first class mail and separate certified - saying he would be entering on Monday at 11.

So if she does not confirm, can LL enter using his key? (Will not enter forcibly, will not break or change any unauthorized lock, etc.)

Everything seems kosher to me, but I am seeking the residential experts here - from both sides (yes, Harry and Shane, I mean you guys).

Any thoughts are greatly appreciated. Thanks.

Sent on the Sprint® Now Network from my BlackBerry®

-----Original Message-----
From: "Neil B. Shoter" NShoter@shutts.com
Sender: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 12:20:13
To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee'landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Reply-To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: [RPPTL LandTen] Unlawful Detainer issue

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

Quick question while I am out of the office. Residential lease is almost up. Landlord wants to inspect the premises (lease allows it in accordance with Ch. 83). Numerous messages for tenant were not returned. LL mailed her last week - first class mail and separate certified - saying he would be entering on Monday at 11. So if she does not confirm, can LL enter using his key? (Will not enter forcibly, will not break or change any unauthorized lock, etc.) Everything seems kosher to me, but I am seeking the residential experts here - from both sides (yes, Harry and Shane, I mean you guys). Any thoughts are greatly appreciated. Thanks. Sent on the Sprint® Now Network from my BlackBerry® -----Original Message----- From: "Neil B. Shoter" <NShoter@shutts.com> Sender: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 12:20:13 To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee'<landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org> Reply-To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee <landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org> Subject: [RPPTL LandTen] Unlawful Detainer issue _______________________________________________ landten mailing list landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/landten

EA

Eric A. Jacobs, J.D. M.B.A.

Fri, Feb 3, 2012 3:56 PM

In my view unless the lease permits the entry for the purpose of the
intended entry, I would instruct my client not to do it.

___________________________________________________________________________

www.BPJOLaw.com

Eric A. Jacobs, J.D. M.B.A.
Managing Partner
Eric@BPJOLaw.com
1930 Harrison Street, Suite 208
Hollywood, FL 33020
tel: 954-929-0679 ext. 104
fax: 888-632-4944

Check us out on:
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/BPJOLaw
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/company/beloff-parker-jacobs-&-offir
RSS Feed: http://www.bpjolaw.com/feed

Confidentiality and Relationship Disclosure. If you are reading this,
congratulations, you are probably the first. For years law firms have
included lengthy disclosures at the bottom of their emails which in our view
are of, at best, marginal legal value. We have decided not to do that.
Instead, we will ask that if you got this email and shouldn't have, let us
know and please don't read it (though if you've read this, chances are that
ship has sailed). Also, just because we exchange emails doesn't make us
your lawyer(s). If you would like to create an attorney/client
relationship, we're glad to hear it and would be happy to provide you with
an engagement letter. As soon as you have received written confirmation
from us, you can consider our relationship formed.

-----Original Message-----
From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org
[mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of
sfrank@saflaw.com
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 10:46 AM
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Unlawful Detainer issue

Quick question while I am out of the office. Residential lease is almost
up. Landlord wants to inspect the premises (lease allows it in accordance
with Ch. 83).

Numerous messages for tenant were not returned. LL mailed her last week -
first class mail and separate certified - saying he would be entering on
Monday at 11.

So if she does not confirm, can LL enter using his key? (Will not enter
forcibly, will not break or change any unauthorized lock, etc.)

Everything seems kosher to me, but I am seeking the residential experts here

from both sides (yes, Harry and Shane, I mean you guys).

Any thoughts are greatly appreciated. Thanks.

Sent on the Sprint® Now Network from my BlackBerry®

-----Original Message-----
From: "Neil B. Shoter" NShoter@shutts.com
Sender: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 12:20:13
To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee'landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Reply-To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: [RPPTL LandTen] Unlawful Detainer issue

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

In my view unless the lease permits the entry for the purpose of the intended entry, I would instruct my client not to do it. ___________________________________________________________________________ ___ www.BPJOLaw.com Eric A. Jacobs, J.D. M.B.A. Managing Partner Eric@BPJOLaw.com 1930 Harrison Street, Suite 208 Hollywood, FL 33020 tel: 954-929-0679 ext. 104 fax: 888-632-4944 Check us out on: Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/BPJOLaw LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/company/beloff-parker-jacobs-&-offir RSS Feed: http://www.bpjolaw.com/feed Confidentiality and Relationship Disclosure. If you are reading this, congratulations, you are probably the first. For years law firms have included lengthy disclosures at the bottom of their emails which in our view are of, at best, marginal legal value. We have decided not to do that. Instead, we will ask that if you got this email and shouldn't have, let us know and please don't read it (though if you've read this, chances are that ship has sailed). Also, just because we exchange emails doesn't make us your lawyer(s). If you would like to create an attorney/client relationship, we're glad to hear it and would be happy to provide you with an engagement letter. As soon as you have received written confirmation from us, you can consider our relationship formed. -----Original Message----- From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of sfrank@saflaw.com Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 10:46 AM To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Unlawful Detainer issue Quick question while I am out of the office. Residential lease is almost up. Landlord wants to inspect the premises (lease allows it in accordance with Ch. 83). Numerous messages for tenant were not returned. LL mailed her last week - first class mail and separate certified - saying he would be entering on Monday at 11. So if she does not confirm, can LL enter using his key? (Will not enter forcibly, will not break or change any unauthorized lock, etc.) Everything seems kosher to me, but I am seeking the residential experts here - from both sides (yes, Harry and Shane, I mean you guys). Any thoughts are greatly appreciated. Thanks. Sent on the Sprint® Now Network from my BlackBerry® -----Original Message----- From: "Neil B. Shoter" <NShoter@shutts.com> Sender: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 12:20:13 To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee'<landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org> Reply-To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee <landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org> Subject: [RPPTL LandTen] Unlawful Detainer issue _______________________________________________ landten mailing list landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/landten _______________________________________________ landten mailing list landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/landten

S

sfrank (at) saflaw.com

Fri, Feb 3, 2012 3:58 PM

Lease allows entry for inspection purposes.

Sent on the Sprint® Now Network from my BlackBerry®

-----Original Message-----
From: "Eric A. Jacobs, J.D. M.B.A." eric@bpjolaw.com
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 10:56:04
To: sfrank@saflaw.com; 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee'landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: RE: [RPPTL LandTen] Unlawful Detainer issue

In my view unless the lease permits the entry for the purpose of the
intended entry, I would instruct my client not to do it.

___________________________________________________________________________

www.BPJOLaw.com

Eric A. Jacobs, J.D. M.B.A.
Managing Partner
Eric@BPJOLaw.com
1930 Harrison Street, Suite 208
Hollywood, FL 33020
tel: 954-929-0679 ext. 104
fax: 888-632-4944

Check us out on:
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/BPJOLaw
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/company/beloff-parker-jacobs-&-offir
RSS Feed: http://www.bpjolaw.com/feed

Confidentiality and Relationship Disclosure. If you are reading this,
congratulations, you are probably the first. For years law firms have
included lengthy disclosures at the bottom of their emails which in our view
are of, at best, marginal legal value. We have decided not to do that.
Instead, we will ask that if you got this email and shouldn't have, let us
know and please don't read it (though if you've read this, chances are that
ship has sailed). Also, just because we exchange emails doesn't make us
your lawyer(s). If you would like to create an attorney/client
relationship, we're glad to hear it and would be happy to provide you with
an engagement letter. As soon as you have received written confirmation
from us, you can consider our relationship formed.

-----Original Message-----
From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org
[mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of
sfrank@saflaw.com
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 10:46 AM
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Unlawful Detainer issue

Quick question while I am out of the office. Residential lease is almost
up. Landlord wants to inspect the premises (lease allows it in accordance
with Ch. 83).

Numerous messages for tenant were not returned. LL mailed her last week -
first class mail and separate certified - saying he would be entering on
Monday at 11.

So if she does not confirm, can LL enter using his key? (Will not enter
forcibly, will not break or change any unauthorized lock, etc.)

Everything seems kosher to me, but I am seeking the residential experts here

from both sides (yes, Harry and Shane, I mean you guys).

Any thoughts are greatly appreciated. Thanks.

Sent on the Sprint® Now Network from my BlackBerry®

-----Original Message-----
From: "Neil B. Shoter" NShoter@shutts.com
Sender: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 12:20:13
To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee'landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Reply-To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: [RPPTL LandTen] Unlawful Detainer issue

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

Lease allows entry for inspection purposes. Sent on the Sprint® Now Network from my BlackBerry® -----Original Message----- From: "Eric A. Jacobs, J.D. M.B.A." <eric@bpjolaw.com> Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 10:56:04 To: <sfrank@saflaw.com>; 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee'<landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org> Subject: RE: [RPPTL LandTen] Unlawful Detainer issue In my view unless the lease permits the entry for the purpose of the intended entry, I would instruct my client not to do it. ___________________________________________________________________________ ___ www.BPJOLaw.com Eric A. Jacobs, J.D. M.B.A. Managing Partner Eric@BPJOLaw.com 1930 Harrison Street, Suite 208 Hollywood, FL 33020 tel: 954-929-0679 ext. 104 fax: 888-632-4944 Check us out on: Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/BPJOLaw LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/company/beloff-parker-jacobs-&-offir RSS Feed: http://www.bpjolaw.com/feed Confidentiality and Relationship Disclosure. If you are reading this, congratulations, you are probably the first. For years law firms have included lengthy disclosures at the bottom of their emails which in our view are of, at best, marginal legal value. We have decided not to do that. Instead, we will ask that if you got this email and shouldn't have, let us know and please don't read it (though if you've read this, chances are that ship has sailed). Also, just because we exchange emails doesn't make us your lawyer(s). If you would like to create an attorney/client relationship, we're glad to hear it and would be happy to provide you with an engagement letter. As soon as you have received written confirmation from us, you can consider our relationship formed. -----Original Message----- From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of sfrank@saflaw.com Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 10:46 AM To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Unlawful Detainer issue Quick question while I am out of the office. Residential lease is almost up. Landlord wants to inspect the premises (lease allows it in accordance with Ch. 83). Numerous messages for tenant were not returned. LL mailed her last week - first class mail and separate certified - saying he would be entering on Monday at 11. So if she does not confirm, can LL enter using his key? (Will not enter forcibly, will not break or change any unauthorized lock, etc.) Everything seems kosher to me, but I am seeking the residential experts here - from both sides (yes, Harry and Shane, I mean you guys). Any thoughts are greatly appreciated. Thanks. Sent on the Sprint® Now Network from my BlackBerry® -----Original Message----- From: "Neil B. Shoter" <NShoter@shutts.com> Sender: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 12:20:13 To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee'<landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org> Reply-To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee <landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org> Subject: [RPPTL LandTen] Unlawful Detainer issue _______________________________________________ landten mailing list landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/landten _______________________________________________ landten mailing list landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/landten

EA

Eric A. Jacobs, J.D. M.B.A.

Fri, Feb 3, 2012 4:02 PM

If it allows it, I would have no problem with it though I would have to be
satisfied that the lease permitted the specific reason.

___________________________________________________________________________

www.BPJOLaw.com

Eric A. Jacobs, J.D. M.B.A.
Managing Partner
Eric@BPJOLaw.com
1930 Harrison Street, Suite 208
Hollywood, FL 33020
tel: 954-929-0679 ext. 104
fax: 888-632-4944

Check us out on:
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/BPJOLaw
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/company/beloff-parker-jacobs-&-offir
RSS Feed: http://www.bpjolaw.com/feed

Confidentiality and Relationship Disclosure. If you are reading this,
congratulations, you are probably the first. For years law firms have
included lengthy disclosures at the bottom of their emails which in our view
are of, at best, marginal legal value. We have decided not to do that.
Instead, we will ask that if you got this email and shouldn't have, let us
know and please don't read it (though if you've read this, chances are that
ship has sailed). Also, just because we exchange emails doesn't make us
your lawyer(s). If you would like to create an attorney/client
relationship, we're glad to hear it and would be happy to provide you with
an engagement letter. As soon as you have received written confirmation
from us, you can consider our relationship formed.

-----Original Message-----
From: sfrank@saflaw.com [mailto:sfrank@saflaw.com]
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 10:59 AM
To: Eric A. Jacobs, J.D. M.B.A.; 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee'
Subject: RE: [RPPTL LandTen] Unlawful Detainer issue

Lease allows entry for inspection purposes.

Sent on the Sprint® Now Network from my BlackBerry®

-----Original Message-----
From: "Eric A. Jacobs, J.D. M.B.A." eric@bpjolaw.com
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 10:56:04
To: sfrank@saflaw.com; 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant
Committee'landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: RE: [RPPTL LandTen] Unlawful Detainer issue

In my view unless the lease permits the entry for the purpose of the
intended entry, I would instruct my client not to do it.

___________________________________________________________________________

www.BPJOLaw.com

Eric A. Jacobs, J.D. M.B.A.
Managing Partner
Eric@BPJOLaw.com
1930 Harrison Street, Suite 208
Hollywood, FL 33020
tel: 954-929-0679 ext. 104
fax: 888-632-4944

Check us out on:
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/BPJOLaw
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/company/beloff-parker-jacobs-&-offir
RSS Feed: http://www.bpjolaw.com/feed

Confidentiality and Relationship Disclosure. If you are reading this,
congratulations, you are probably the first. For years law firms have
included lengthy disclosures at the bottom of their emails which in our view
are of, at best, marginal legal value. We have decided not to do that.
Instead, we will ask that if you got this email and shouldn't have, let us
know and please don't read it (though if you've read this, chances are that
ship has sailed). Also, just because we exchange emails doesn't make us
your lawyer(s). If you would like to create an attorney/client
relationship, we're glad to hear it and would be happy to provide you with
an engagement letter. As soon as you have received written confirmation
from us, you can consider our relationship formed.

-----Original Message-----
From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org
[mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of
sfrank@saflaw.com
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 10:46 AM
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Unlawful Detainer issue

Quick question while I am out of the office. Residential lease is almost
up. Landlord wants to inspect the premises (lease allows it in accordance
with Ch. 83).

Numerous messages for tenant were not returned. LL mailed her last week -
first class mail and separate certified - saying he would be entering on
Monday at 11.

So if she does not confirm, can LL enter using his key? (Will not enter
forcibly, will not break or change any unauthorized lock, etc.)

Everything seems kosher to me, but I am seeking the residential experts here

from both sides (yes, Harry and Shane, I mean you guys).

Any thoughts are greatly appreciated. Thanks.

Sent on the Sprint® Now Network from my BlackBerry®

-----Original Message-----
From: "Neil B. Shoter" NShoter@shutts.com
Sender: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 12:20:13
To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee'landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Reply-To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: [RPPTL LandTen] Unlawful Detainer issue

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

If it allows it, I would have no problem with it though I would have to be satisfied that the lease permitted the specific reason. ___________________________________________________________________________ ___ www.BPJOLaw.com Eric A. Jacobs, J.D. M.B.A. Managing Partner Eric@BPJOLaw.com 1930 Harrison Street, Suite 208 Hollywood, FL 33020 tel: 954-929-0679 ext. 104 fax: 888-632-4944 Check us out on: Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/BPJOLaw LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/company/beloff-parker-jacobs-&-offir RSS Feed: http://www.bpjolaw.com/feed Confidentiality and Relationship Disclosure. If you are reading this, congratulations, you are probably the first. For years law firms have included lengthy disclosures at the bottom of their emails which in our view are of, at best, marginal legal value. We have decided not to do that. Instead, we will ask that if you got this email and shouldn't have, let us know and please don't read it (though if you've read this, chances are that ship has sailed). Also, just because we exchange emails doesn't make us your lawyer(s). If you would like to create an attorney/client relationship, we're glad to hear it and would be happy to provide you with an engagement letter. As soon as you have received written confirmation from us, you can consider our relationship formed. -----Original Message----- From: sfrank@saflaw.com [mailto:sfrank@saflaw.com] Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 10:59 AM To: Eric A. Jacobs, J.D. M.B.A.; 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee' Subject: RE: [RPPTL LandTen] Unlawful Detainer issue Lease allows entry for inspection purposes. Sent on the Sprint® Now Network from my BlackBerry® -----Original Message----- From: "Eric A. Jacobs, J.D. M.B.A." <eric@bpjolaw.com> Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 10:56:04 To: <sfrank@saflaw.com>; 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee'<landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org> Subject: RE: [RPPTL LandTen] Unlawful Detainer issue In my view unless the lease permits the entry for the purpose of the intended entry, I would instruct my client not to do it. ___________________________________________________________________________ ___ www.BPJOLaw.com Eric A. Jacobs, J.D. M.B.A. Managing Partner Eric@BPJOLaw.com 1930 Harrison Street, Suite 208 Hollywood, FL 33020 tel: 954-929-0679 ext. 104 fax: 888-632-4944 Check us out on: Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/BPJOLaw LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/company/beloff-parker-jacobs-&-offir RSS Feed: http://www.bpjolaw.com/feed Confidentiality and Relationship Disclosure. If you are reading this, congratulations, you are probably the first. For years law firms have included lengthy disclosures at the bottom of their emails which in our view are of, at best, marginal legal value. We have decided not to do that. Instead, we will ask that if you got this email and shouldn't have, let us know and please don't read it (though if you've read this, chances are that ship has sailed). Also, just because we exchange emails doesn't make us your lawyer(s). If you would like to create an attorney/client relationship, we're glad to hear it and would be happy to provide you with an engagement letter. As soon as you have received written confirmation from us, you can consider our relationship formed. -----Original Message----- From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of sfrank@saflaw.com Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 10:46 AM To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Unlawful Detainer issue Quick question while I am out of the office. Residential lease is almost up. Landlord wants to inspect the premises (lease allows it in accordance with Ch. 83). Numerous messages for tenant were not returned. LL mailed her last week - first class mail and separate certified - saying he would be entering on Monday at 11. So if she does not confirm, can LL enter using his key? (Will not enter forcibly, will not break or change any unauthorized lock, etc.) Everything seems kosher to me, but I am seeking the residential experts here - from both sides (yes, Harry and Shane, I mean you guys). Any thoughts are greatly appreciated. Thanks. Sent on the Sprint® Now Network from my BlackBerry® -----Original Message----- From: "Neil B. Shoter" <NShoter@shutts.com> Sender: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 12:20:13 To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee'<landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org> Reply-To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee <landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org> Subject: [RPPTL LandTen] Unlawful Detainer issue _______________________________________________ landten mailing list landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/landten _______________________________________________ landten mailing list landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/landten

HH

Harry Heist

Fri, Feb 3, 2012 4:25 PM

Serve a 7 Day Cure if they do deny access. If you can't get contact and you
do go in, bring witnesses, don't let people wander around, document or they
will say "something is missing"

Harry

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

-----Original Message-----
From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org
[mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of
sfrank@saflaw.com
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 10:59 AM
To: Eric A. Jacobs, J.D. M.B.A.; 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee'
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Unlawful Detainer issue

Lease allows entry for inspection purposes.

Sent on the Sprint® Now Network from my BlackBerry®

-----Original Message-----
From: "Eric A. Jacobs, J.D. M.B.A." eric@bpjolaw.com
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 10:56:04
To: sfrank@saflaw.com; 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant
Committee'landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: RE: [RPPTL LandTen] Unlawful Detainer issue

In my view unless the lease permits the entry for the purpose of the
intended entry, I would instruct my client not to do it.

___________________________________________________________________________

www.BPJOLaw.com

Eric A. Jacobs, J.D. M.B.A.
Managing Partner
Eric@BPJOLaw.com
1930 Harrison Street, Suite 208
Hollywood, FL 33020
tel: 954-929-0679 ext. 104
fax: 888-632-4944

Check us out on:
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/BPJOLaw
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/company/beloff-parker-jacobs-&-offir
RSS Feed: http://www.bpjolaw.com/feed

Confidentiality and Relationship Disclosure. If you are reading this,
congratulations, you are probably the first. For years law firms have
included lengthy disclosures at the bottom of their emails which in our view
are of, at best, marginal legal value. We have decided not to do that.
Instead, we will ask that if you got this email and shouldn't have, let us
know and please don't read it (though if you've read this, chances are that
ship has sailed). Also, just because we exchange emails doesn't make us
your lawyer(s). If you would like to create an attorney/client
relationship, we're glad to hear it and would be happy to provide you with
an engagement letter. As soon as you have received written confirmation
from us, you can consider our relationship formed.

-----Original Message-----
From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org
[mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of
sfrank@saflaw.com
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 10:46 AM
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Unlawful Detainer issue

Quick question while I am out of the office. Residential lease is almost
up. Landlord wants to inspect the premises (lease allows it in accordance
with Ch. 83).

Numerous messages for tenant were not returned. LL mailed her last week -
first class mail and separate certified - saying he would be entering on
Monday at 11.

So if she does not confirm, can LL enter using his key? (Will not enter
forcibly, will not break or change any unauthorized lock, etc.)

Everything seems kosher to me, but I am seeking the residential experts here

from both sides (yes, Harry and Shane, I mean you guys).

Any thoughts are greatly appreciated. Thanks.

Sent on the Sprint® Now Network from my BlackBerry®

-----Original Message-----
From: "Neil B. Shoter" NShoter@shutts.com
Sender: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 12:20:13
To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee'landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Reply-To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: [RPPTL LandTen] Unlawful Detainer issue

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

Serve a 7 Day Cure if they do deny access. If you can't get contact and you do go in, bring witnesses, don't let people wander around, document or they will say "something is missing" Harry LAW OFFICES OF HEIST, WEISSE, DAVIS & WOLK P.A. PH: 1 800 253 8428 FAX: 1 800 367 9038 "Serving the Property Management Professional" Website: www.evict.com Email: harry@evict.com 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. -----Original Message----- From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of sfrank@saflaw.com Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 10:59 AM To: Eric A. Jacobs, J.D. M.B.A.; 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee' Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Unlawful Detainer issue Lease allows entry for inspection purposes. Sent on the Sprint® Now Network from my BlackBerry® -----Original Message----- From: "Eric A. Jacobs, J.D. M.B.A." <eric@bpjolaw.com> Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 10:56:04 To: <sfrank@saflaw.com>; 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee'<landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org> Subject: RE: [RPPTL LandTen] Unlawful Detainer issue In my view unless the lease permits the entry for the purpose of the intended entry, I would instruct my client not to do it. ___________________________________________________________________________ ___ www.BPJOLaw.com Eric A. Jacobs, J.D. M.B.A. Managing Partner Eric@BPJOLaw.com 1930 Harrison Street, Suite 208 Hollywood, FL 33020 tel: 954-929-0679 ext. 104 fax: 888-632-4944 Check us out on: Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/BPJOLaw LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/company/beloff-parker-jacobs-&-offir RSS Feed: http://www.bpjolaw.com/feed Confidentiality and Relationship Disclosure. If you are reading this, congratulations, you are probably the first. For years law firms have included lengthy disclosures at the bottom of their emails which in our view are of, at best, marginal legal value. We have decided not to do that. Instead, we will ask that if you got this email and shouldn't have, let us know and please don't read it (though if you've read this, chances are that ship has sailed). Also, just because we exchange emails doesn't make us your lawyer(s). If you would like to create an attorney/client relationship, we're glad to hear it and would be happy to provide you with an engagement letter. As soon as you have received written confirmation from us, you can consider our relationship formed. -----Original Message----- From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of sfrank@saflaw.com Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 10:46 AM To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Unlawful Detainer issue Quick question while I am out of the office. Residential lease is almost up. Landlord wants to inspect the premises (lease allows it in accordance with Ch. 83). Numerous messages for tenant were not returned. LL mailed her last week - first class mail and separate certified - saying he would be entering on Monday at 11. So if she does not confirm, can LL enter using his key? (Will not enter forcibly, will not break or change any unauthorized lock, etc.) Everything seems kosher to me, but I am seeking the residential experts here - from both sides (yes, Harry and Shane, I mean you guys). Any thoughts are greatly appreciated. Thanks. Sent on the Sprint® Now Network from my BlackBerry® -----Original Message----- From: "Neil B. Shoter" <NShoter@shutts.com> Sender: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 12:20:13 To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee'<landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org> Reply-To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee <landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org> Subject: [RPPTL LandTen] Unlawful Detainer issue _______________________________________________ landten mailing list landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/landten _______________________________________________ landten mailing list landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/landten _______________________________________________ landten mailing list landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/landten