Empathy List Archives

JM

Jeff Mazor

Tue, Jan 14, 2014 10:55 PM

Some things are so obvious to experienced practitioners, that we are
surprised when newbies don't see the same, obvious points.

I have always understood that, even in actions for possession only (i.e., no
claim for damages), money deposited into the court registry under Florida
statute sections 83.232 and 83.60 not only serves to keep the tenant honest
and avoid stall tactics, but is also intended to provide a fund that the
court can disburse to the landlord. The point is that if and when the
landlord wins possession, the money that was deposited into the registry
corresponding to past due and accruing rent is to be dispersed to the
landlord.

I'm confronted with a judge who seems to believe that if there is no
separate claim for money damages, even if the landlord wins possession, the
registry funds must be returned to the tenant!!

I haven't found it yet, but does anyone have authority for the proposition
that the registry funds must be paid to the landlord????

Thank you so much.

Jeffrey R. Mazor, Esq.
J. R. Mazor & Associates, P.A.
Presidential Circle Building
4000 Hollywood Blvd., Suite 265-s
Hollywood, FL 33021
Phone: 954-962-3500
Fax: 954-962-3560
Email: JMazor@Mazor.com

Some things are so obvious to experienced practitioners, that we are surprised when newbies don't see the same, obvious points. I have always understood that, even in actions for possession only (i.e., no claim for damages), money deposited into the court registry under Florida statute sections 83.232 and 83.60 not only serves to keep the tenant honest and avoid stall tactics, but is also intended to provide a fund that the court can disburse to the landlord. The point is that if and when the landlord wins possession, the money that was deposited into the registry corresponding to past due and accruing rent is to be dispersed to the landlord. I'm confronted with a judge who seems to believe that if there is no separate claim for money damages, even if the landlord wins possession, the registry funds must be returned to the tenant!! I haven't found it yet, but does anyone have authority for the proposition that the registry funds must be paid to the landlord???? Thank you so much. Jeffrey R. Mazor, Esq. J. R. Mazor & Associates, P.A. Presidential Circle Building 4000 Hollywood Blvd., Suite 265-s Hollywood, FL 33021 Phone: 954-962-3500 Fax: 954-962-3560 Email: JMazor@Mazor.com

DC

Dennis Chen

Wed, Jan 15, 2014 2:08 AM

I believe 83.61 & 83.625 provide a basis for claiming the rent in the
registry.

Dennis A. Chen, Esq.
Chen Law Firm, PA
5401 S. Kirkman Rd., Ste. 310
Orlando, Florida 32819
Tel: (407) 392-1872
Fax: 1-866-571-3421
dennis@chenlaw.net

Bankruptcy * Civil Litigation * Landlord/Tenant * Personal Injury * Real
Estate Litigation

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail, including any attachment, contains
legally privileged and confidential information and is intended solely for
the recipient. Should the intended recipient forward this message to any
person or entity, that action could constitute a waiver of the
attorney-client privilege. If the reader of this message is not the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination,
distribution, or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this
communication was sent or received in error, please notify us by reply
e-mail and delete the original message.

On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 5:55 PM, Jeff Mazor jmazor@mazor.com wrote:

Some things are so obvious to experienced practitioners, that we are
surprised when newbies don't see the same, obvious points.

I have always understood that, even in actions for possession only (i.e.,
no
claim for damages), money deposited into the court registry under Florida
statute sections 83.232 and 83.60 not only serves to keep the tenant honest
and avoid stall tactics, but is also intended to provide a fund that the
court can disburse to the landlord. The point is that if and when the
landlord wins possession, the money that was deposited into the registry
corresponding to past due and accruing rent is to be dispersed to the
landlord.

I'm confronted with a judge who seems to believe that if there is no
separate claim for money damages, even if the landlord wins possession,
the
registry funds must be returned to the tenant!!

I haven't found it yet, but does anyone have authority for the proposition
that the registry funds must be paid to the landlord????

Thank you so much.

Jeffrey R. Mazor, Esq.
J. R. Mazor & Associates, P.A.
Presidential Circle Building
4000 Hollywood Blvd., Suite 265-s
Hollywood, FL 33021
Phone: 954-962-3500
Fax: 954-962-3560
Email: JMazor@Mazor.com

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

I believe 83.61 & 83.625 provide a basis for claiming the rent in the registry. Dennis A. Chen, Esq. Chen Law Firm, PA 5401 S. Kirkman Rd., Ste. 310 Orlando, Florida 32819 Tel: (407) 392-1872 Fax: 1-866-571-3421 dennis@chenlaw.net Bankruptcy * Civil Litigation * Landlord/Tenant * Personal Injury * Real Estate Litigation CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail, including any attachment, contains legally privileged and confidential information and is intended solely for the recipient. Should the intended recipient forward this message to any person or entity, that action could constitute a waiver of the attorney-client privilege. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication was sent or received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message. On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 5:55 PM, Jeff Mazor <jmazor@mazor.com> wrote: > > Some things are so obvious to experienced practitioners, that we are > surprised when newbies don't see the same, obvious points. > > I have always understood that, even in actions for possession only (i.e., > no > claim for damages), money deposited into the court registry under Florida > statute sections 83.232 and 83.60 not only serves to keep the tenant honest > and avoid stall tactics, but is also intended to provide a fund that the > court can disburse to the landlord. The point is that if and when the > landlord wins possession, the money that was deposited into the registry > corresponding to past due and accruing rent is to be dispersed to the > landlord. > > I'm confronted with a judge who seems to believe that if there is no > separate claim for money damages, even if the landlord wins possession, > the > registry funds must be returned to the tenant!! > > I haven't found it yet, but does anyone have authority for the proposition > that the registry funds must be paid to the landlord???? > > Thank you so much. > > Jeffrey R. Mazor, Esq. > J. R. Mazor & Associates, P.A. > Presidential Circle Building > 4000 Hollywood Blvd., Suite 265-s > Hollywood, FL 33021 > Phone: 954-962-3500 > Fax: 954-962-3560 > Email: JMazor@Mazor.com > > > > > _______________________________________________ > landten mailing list > landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org > http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/landten >

HH

Harry Heist

Wed, Jan 15, 2014 2:36 AM

What judge?

Harry

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

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 Dennis Chen
Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2014 9:08 PM
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Collecting the registry funds deposited under
83..232 or 83.60 in an action for possession only

I believe 83.61 & 83.625 provide a basis for claiming the rent in the
registry.

Dennis A. Chen, Esq.
Chen Law Firm, PA
5401 S. Kirkman Rd., Ste. 310
Orlando, Florida 32819
Tel: (407) 392-1872
Fax: 1-866-571-3421
dennis@chenlaw.net

Bankruptcy * Civil Litigation * Landlord/Tenant * Personal Injury * Real
Estate Litigation

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail, including any attachment, contains
legally privileged and confidential information and is intended solely for
the recipient. Should the intended recipient forward this message to any
person or entity, that action could constitute a waiver of the
attorney-client privilege. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination,
distribution, or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this
communication was sent or received in error, please notify us by reply
e-mail and delete the original message.

On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 5:55 PM, Jeff Mazor jmazor@mazor.com wrote:

Some things are so obvious to experienced practitioners, that we are
surprised when newbies don't see the same, obvious points.

I have always understood that, even in actions for possession only (i.e., no
claim for damages), money deposited into the court registry under Florida
statute sections 83.232 and 83.60 not only serves to keep the tenant honest
and avoid stall tactics, but is also intended to provide a fund that the
court can disburse to the landlord. The point is that if and when the
landlord wins possession, the money that was deposited into the registry
corresponding to past due and accruing rent is to be dispersed to the
landlord.

I'm confronted with a judge who seems to believe that if there is no
separate claim for money damages, even if the landlord wins possession, the
registry funds must be returned to the tenant!!

I haven't found it yet, but does anyone have authority for the proposition
that the registry funds must be paid to the landlord????

Thank you so much.

Jeffrey R. Mazor, Esq.
J. R. Mazor & Associates, P.A.
Presidential Circle Building
4000 Hollywood Blvd., Suite 265-s
Hollywood, FL 33021
Phone: 954-962-3500
Fax: 954-962-3560
Email: JMazor@Mazor.com

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

What judge? Harry LAW OFFICES OF HEIST, WEISSE, & WOLK P.A. PH: 1 800 253 8428 FAX: 1 800 367 9038 "Serving the Property Management Professional" Website: www.evict.com <http://www.evict.com/> Email: harry@evict.com 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 Dennis Chen Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2014 9:08 PM To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Collecting the registry funds deposited under 83..232 or 83.60 in an action for possession only I believe 83.61 & 83.625 provide a basis for claiming the rent in the registry. Dennis A. Chen, Esq. Chen Law Firm, PA 5401 S. Kirkman Rd., Ste. 310 Orlando, Florida 32819 Tel: (407) 392-1872 Fax: 1-866-571-3421 dennis@chenlaw.net Bankruptcy * Civil Litigation * Landlord/Tenant * Personal Injury * Real Estate Litigation CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail, including any attachment, contains legally privileged and confidential information and is intended solely for the recipient. Should the intended recipient forward this message to any person or entity, that action could constitute a waiver of the attorney-client privilege. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication was sent or received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message. On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 5:55 PM, Jeff Mazor <jmazor@mazor.com> wrote: Some things are so obvious to experienced practitioners, that we are surprised when newbies don't see the same, obvious points. I have always understood that, even in actions for possession only (i.e., no claim for damages), money deposited into the court registry under Florida statute sections 83.232 and 83.60 not only serves to keep the tenant honest and avoid stall tactics, but is also intended to provide a fund that the court can disburse to the landlord. The point is that if and when the landlord wins possession, the money that was deposited into the registry corresponding to past due and accruing rent is to be dispersed to the landlord. I'm confronted with a judge who seems to believe that if there is no separate claim for money damages, even if the landlord wins possession, the registry funds must be returned to the tenant!! I haven't found it yet, but does anyone have authority for the proposition that the registry funds must be paid to the landlord???? Thank you so much. Jeffrey R. Mazor, Esq. J. R. Mazor & Associates, P.A. Presidential Circle Building 4000 Hollywood Blvd., Suite 265-s Hollywood, FL 33021 Phone: 954-962-3500 Fax: 954-962-3560 Email: JMazor@Mazor.com _______________________________________________ landten mailing list landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/landten

JM

Jeffrey Mazor

Wed, Jan 15, 2014 2:58 AM

Thank you so much for the input. I can't figure out why your logical
approach is reflected in the residential statute but not so much in the
commercial.. Except, the commercial does say that if the landlord is at
risk for losing the property the court can disperse the p money
On Jan 14, 2014 9:11 PM, "Dennis Chen" dennis@chenlaw.net wrote:

I believe 83.61 & 83.625 provide a basis for claiming the rent in the
registry.

Dennis A. Chen, Esq.
Chen Law Firm, PA
5401 S. Kirkman Rd., Ste. 310
Orlando, Florida 32819
Tel: (407) 392-1872
Fax: 1-866-571-3421
dennis@chenlaw.net

Bankruptcy * Civil Litigation * Landlord/Tenant * Personal Injury * Real
Estate Litigation

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail, including any attachment, contains
legally privileged and confidential information and is intended solely for
the recipient. Should the intended recipient forward this message to any
person or entity, that action could constitute a waiver of the
attorney-client privilege. If the reader of this message is not the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination,
distribution, or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this
communication was sent or received in error, please notify us by reply
e-mail and delete the original message.

On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 5:55 PM, Jeff Mazor jmazor@mazor.com wrote:

Some things are so obvious to experienced practitioners, that we are
surprised when newbies don't see the same, obvious points.

I have always understood that, even in actions for possession only (i.e.,
no
claim for damages), money deposited into the court registry under Florida
statute sections 83.232 and 83.60 not only serves to keep the tenant
honest
and avoid stall tactics, but is also intended to provide a fund that the
court can disburse to the landlord. The point is that if and when the
landlord wins possession, the money that was deposited into the registry
corresponding to past due and accruing rent is to be dispersed to the
landlord.

I'm confronted with a judge who seems to believe that if there is no
separate claim for money damages, even if the landlord wins possession,
the
registry funds must be returned to the tenant!!

I haven't found it yet, but does anyone have authority for the proposition
that the registry funds must be paid to the landlord????

Thank you so much.

Jeffrey R. Mazor, Esq.
J. R. Mazor & Associates, P.A.
Presidential Circle Building
4000 Hollywood Blvd., Suite 265-s
Hollywood, FL 33021
Phone: 954-962-3500
Fax: 954-962-3560
Email: JMazor@Mazor.com

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

Thank you so much for the input. I can't figure out why your logical approach is reflected in the residential statute but not so much in the commercial.. Except, the commercial does say that if the landlord is at risk for losing the property the court can disperse the p money On Jan 14, 2014 9:11 PM, "Dennis Chen" <dennis@chenlaw.net> wrote: > I believe 83.61 & 83.625 provide a basis for claiming the rent in the > registry. > > > Dennis A. Chen, Esq. > Chen Law Firm, PA > 5401 S. Kirkman Rd., Ste. 310 > Orlando, Florida 32819 > Tel: (407) 392-1872 > Fax: 1-866-571-3421 > dennis@chenlaw.net > > Bankruptcy * Civil Litigation * Landlord/Tenant * Personal Injury * Real > Estate Litigation > > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail, including any attachment, contains > legally privileged and confidential information and is intended solely for > the recipient. Should the intended recipient forward this message to any > person or entity, that action could constitute a waiver of the > attorney-client privilege. If the reader of this message is not the > intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, > distribution, or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this > communication was sent or received in error, please notify us by reply > e-mail and delete the original message. > > > On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 5:55 PM, Jeff Mazor <jmazor@mazor.com> wrote: > >> >> Some things are so obvious to experienced practitioners, that we are >> surprised when newbies don't see the same, obvious points. >> >> I have always understood that, even in actions for possession only (i.e., >> no >> claim for damages), money deposited into the court registry under Florida >> statute sections 83.232 and 83.60 not only serves to keep the tenant >> honest >> and avoid stall tactics, but is also intended to provide a fund that the >> court can disburse to the landlord. The point is that if and when the >> landlord wins possession, the money that was deposited into the registry >> corresponding to past due and accruing rent is to be dispersed to the >> landlord. >> >> I'm confronted with a judge who seems to believe that if there is no >> separate claim for money damages, even if the landlord wins possession, >> the >> registry funds must be returned to the tenant!! >> >> I haven't found it yet, but does anyone have authority for the proposition >> that the registry funds must be paid to the landlord???? >> >> Thank you so much. >> >> Jeffrey R. Mazor, Esq. >> J. R. Mazor & Associates, P.A. >> Presidential Circle Building >> 4000 Hollywood Blvd., Suite 265-s >> Hollywood, FL 33021 >> Phone: 954-962-3500 >> Fax: 954-962-3560 >> Email: JMazor@Mazor.com >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 >