[RPPTL LandTen] Action to recover Residential Security Deposit
At the end of the lease, tenant vacates and leaves the premises in poor condition. Within the 30 days, landlord provides a detailed notice of intention to impose a claim. Tenant, through counsel, timely objects to the claim. The statute does not say how long the parties have to file suit. Can the Landlord just sit and not return the deposit?
For how long?
David Weisman
Board Certified Real Estate Lawyer
Greenspoon Marder, P.A.
Trade Center South, Suite 700
100 West Cypress Creek Road
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33309
Phone 954-491-1120
Toll Free 888-491-1120
Direct Phone 954-343-6941
Direct Fax 954-343-6942
[Email Logo -Resize 30]
The information contained in this transmission may be attorney/client privileged and confidential. It is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by reply e-mail.
Pursuant to Internal Revenue Service guidance, be advised that any federal tax advice contained in this written or electronic communication, including any attachments or enclosures, is not intended or written to be used and it
cannot be used by any person or entity for the purpose of (i) avoiding any tax penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service or any other U.S. Federal taxing authority or agency or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
A portion of our practice involves the collection of debt and any information you provide will be used for that purpose if we are attempting to collect a debt from you.
In my opinion, s. 83.49, Fla. Stat., does not go far enough to guide the
landlord and tenant on what happens after the landlord timely serves a
notice of claim and the tenant timely serves its objection to the claim.
Some argue that the landlord should not have to do anything after making its
claim, regardless of the objection by the tenant. Rather, it is the
tenant's obligation to bring an action for breach of contract, specific
performance, declaratory judgment, etc., to recover its security deposit.
Others would argue that a landlord cannot self-adjudicate its right to claim
the deposit under the lease. When s. 83.49(3(a),(b) and (c), Fla. Stat.,
are read together, it seems to suggest that the landlord has to bring an
action to adjudicate its claim. After all, if the tenant fails to pay rent,
the landlord must enforce its rights through an eviction action to remove
the tenant. Arguably, if the tenant damages the unit, the landlord must
enforce its right to keep the security deposit through an action for
declaratory judgment or breach of contract.
Section 83.49 (3)(a) states the landlord's obligation to return the deposit
or serve a written notice of its intent to impose a claim along with the
statutory language. Subsection (3(b) states that unless the tenant timely
objects to the imposition of the claim, the landlord may deduct the amount
of its claim from the security deposit, which is also contained in the
statutory notice. The problem is that the statute does not go far enough to
inform the landlord or tenant what happens after the tenant timely serves
its objection. Instead, subsection (3)(c) provides for the prevailing
party's right to fees and costs by first referencing the bringing of an
action by either party, to adjudicate the party's right to the security
deposit. Without looking into the legislative history, section (3)(c) seems
to imply that the landlord must bring an action to adjudicate its right to
the deposit following a timely objection by the tenant.
Perhaps this is another area where a clarification to the statute is needed.
Regards,
AJH Logo mark
Anthony J. Horky, Esquire
Anthony J. Horky, P.A.
2255 Glades Road, Suite 324A
Boca Raton, Florida 33431
T: 561.989.3206
F. 561.989.3204
This message and the documents attached to it, if any, are intended only for
the use of the addressee and may contain information that is attorney-client
privileged or confidential, and/or may contain attorney work product. If
you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this communication in error, please delete all electronic copies of
this message and its attachments, if any, destroy any hard copies you may
have created and notify me immediately at: mailto:ahorky@horkylaw.com
ahorky@horkylaw.com.
Tax Advice Disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the
IRS under Circular 230, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice
contained in this communication (including any attachments), unless
otherwise specifically stated, was not intended or written to be used, and
cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal
Revenue Code or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party
any matters addressed herein.
From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org
[mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of David Weisman
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 4:19 PM
To: landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: [RPPTL LandTen] Action to recover Residential Security Deposit
At the end of the lease, tenant vacates and leaves the premises in poor
condition. Within the 30 days, landlord provides a detailed notice of
intention to impose a claim. Tenant, through counsel, timely objects to the
claim. The statute does not say how long the parties have to file suit. Can
the Landlord just sit and not return the deposit?
For how long?
David Weisman
Board Certified Real Estate Lawyer
Greenspoon Marder, P.A.
Trade Center South, Suite 700
100 West Cypress Creek Road
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33309
Phone 954-491-1120
Toll Free 888-491-1120
Direct Phone 954-343-6941
Direct Fax 954-343-6942
Email Logo -Resize 30
The information contained in this transmission may be attorney/client
privileged and confidential. It is intended only for the use of the
individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you
have
received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by reply
e-mail.
Pursuant to Internal Revenue Service guidance, be advised that any federal
tax advice contained in this written or electronic communication, including
any attachments or enclosures, is not intended or written to be used and it
cannot be used by any person or entity for the purpose of (i) avoiding any
tax penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service or any
other U.S. Federal taxing authority or agency or (ii) promoting, marketing
or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
A portion of our practice involves the collection of debt and any
information you provide will be used for that purpose if we are attempting
to collect a debt from you.
It is a shame we could not clarify this in the last law change.
The law is so unclear.
3(b) states that unless the tenant timely objects to the imposition of the
claim, the landlord may deduct the amount of its claim from the security
deposit.
Does this mean if they do object the landlord may not deduct? It would
appear that way.
This forces the hand into litigation over such a small sum OR the broker
holding the money in the escrow account forever.
FREC does not care if a licensee deducts (they won't put this in writing
though) and the end of 83.49 relieved them of the old time procedures.
I am afraid to tell clients to just go ahead and do it because this could
possibly be construed as civil theft.
Most of them do go ahead and do it. I have seen no bad ramifications but the
tenant obviously did not call Leonard. :-)
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 Anthony J. Horky
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 3:05 PM
To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee'
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Action to recover Residential Security Deposit
In my opinion, s. 83.49, Fla. Stat., does not go far enough to guide the
landlord and tenant on what happens after the landlord timely serves a
notice of claim and the tenant timely serves its objection to the claim.
Some argue that the landlord should not have to do anything after making its
claim, regardless of the objection by the tenant. Rather, it is the
tenant's obligation to bring an action for breach of contract, specific
performance, declaratory judgment, etc., to recover its security deposit.
Others would argue that a landlord cannot self-adjudicate its right to claim
the deposit under the lease. When s. 83.49(3(a),(b) and (c), Fla. Stat.,
are read together, it seems to suggest that the landlord has to bring an
action to adjudicate its claim. After all, if the tenant fails to pay rent,
the landlord must enforce its rights through an eviction action to remove
the tenant. Arguably, if the tenant damages the unit, the landlord must
enforce its right to keep the security deposit through an action for
declaratory judgment or breach of contract.
Section 83.49 (3)(a) states the landlord's obligation to return the deposit
or serve a written notice of its intent to impose a claim along with the
statutory language. Subsection (3(b) states that unless the tenant timely
objects to the imposition of the claim, the landlord may deduct the amount
of its claim from the security deposit, which is also contained in the
statutory notice. The problem is that the statute does not go far enough to
inform the landlord or tenant what happens after the tenant timely serves
its objection. Instead, subsection (3)(c) provides for the prevailing
party's right to fees and costs by first referencing the bringing of an
action by either party, to adjudicate the party's right to the security
deposit. Without looking into the legislative history, section (3)(c) seems
to imply that the landlord must bring an action to adjudicate its right to
the deposit following a timely objection by the tenant.
Perhaps this is another area where a clarification to the statute is needed.
Regards,
AJH Logo mark
Anthony J. Horky, Esquire
Anthony J. Horky, P.A.
2255 Glades Road, Suite 324A
Boca Raton, Florida 33431
T: 561.989.3206
F. 561.989.3204
This message and the documents attached to it, if any, are intended only for
the use of the addressee and may contain information that is attorney-client
privileged or confidential, and/or may contain attorney work product. If
you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this communication in error, please delete all electronic copies of
this message and its attachments, if any, destroy any hard copies you may
have created and notify me immediately at: mailto:ahorky@horkylaw.com
ahorky@horkylaw.com.
Tax Advice Disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the
IRS under Circular 230, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice
contained in this communication (including any attachments), unless
otherwise specifically stated, was not intended or written to be used, and
cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal
Revenue Code or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party
any matters addressed herein.
From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org
[mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of David Weisman
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 4:19 PM
To: landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: [RPPTL LandTen] Action to recover Residential Security Deposit
At the end of the lease, tenant vacates and leaves the premises in poor
condition. Within the 30 days, landlord provides a detailed notice of
intention to impose a claim. Tenant, through counsel, timely objects to the
claim. The statute does not say how long the parties have to file suit. Can
the Landlord just sit and not return the deposit?
For how long?
David Weisman
Board Certified Real Estate Lawyer
Greenspoon Marder, P.A.
Trade Center South, Suite 700
100 West Cypress Creek Road
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33309
Phone 954-491-1120
Toll Free 888-491-1120
Direct Phone 954-343-6941
Direct Fax 954-343-6942
Email Logo -Resize 30
The information contained in this transmission may be attorney/client
privileged and confidential. It is intended only for the use of the
individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you
have
received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by reply
e-mail.
Pursuant to Internal Revenue Service guidance, be advised that any federal
tax advice contained in this written or electronic communication, including
any attachments or enclosures, is not intended or written to be used and it
cannot be used by any person or entity for the purpose of (i) avoiding any
tax penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service or any
other U.S. Federal taxing authority or agency or (ii) promoting, marketing
or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
A portion of our practice involves the collection of debt and any
information you provide will be used for that purpose if we are attempting
to collect a debt from you.
I think this is basically correct. I can tell you in my practice, the common practice for a landlord is to keep the money unless sued. I think the statute is left intentionally vague because, depending on the case, one side may be presenting a completely bogus basis to either get the money returned or to keep the money. By simply referring to the attorney fees, the statute attempts to reach its desired result through implication of penalty: if you do not have a serious basis to either keep the deposit or to demand its return, you may want to reconsider holding it or pursuing it lest you may end up owing significantly more than the deposit amount. Yes, it would be easier if the statute said that the undisputed money must be returned and the disputed money must be sued for, but I think the way it is written is meant to encourage settlement rather than encourage litigation through statutory process. It appears this is the line of thinking given the new disclosures necessary under the amended law as it specifically requires that language be put in encouraging settlement without litigation.
So, in answer to the question, the landlord is not required by statute, as far as I can tell, to return the deposit, but should weigh the chances of success or failure in court against the benefit of the deposit amount itself.
Best,
James Zink, Esq.
From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Anthony J. Horky [ahorky@horkylaw.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 3:04 PM
To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee'
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Action to recover Residential Security Deposit
In my opinion, s. 83.49, Fla. Stat., does not go far enough to guide the landlord and tenant on what happens after the landlord timely serves a notice of claim and the tenant timely serves its objection to the claim. Some argue that the landlord should not have to do anything after making its claim, regardless of the objection by the tenant. Rather, it is the tenant’s obligation to bring an action for breach of contract, specific performance, declaratory judgment, etc., to recover its security deposit. Others would argue that a landlord cannot self-adjudicate its right to claim the deposit under the lease. When s. 83.49(3(a),(b) and (c), Fla. Stat., are read together, it seems to suggest that the landlord has to bring an action to adjudicate its claim. After all, if the tenant fails to pay rent, the landlord must enforce its rights through an eviction action to remove the tenant. Arguably, if the tenant damages the unit, the landlord must enforce its right to keep the security deposit through an action for declaratory judgment or breach of contract.
Section 83.49 (3)(a) states the landlord’s obligation to return the deposit or serve a written notice of its intent to impose a claim along with the statutory language. Subsection (3(b) states that unless the tenant timely objects to the imposition of the claim, the landlord may deduct the amount of its claim from the security deposit, which is also contained in the statutory notice. The problem is that the statute does not go far enough to inform the landlord or tenant what happens after the tenant timely serves its objection. Instead, subsection (3)(c) provides for the prevailing party’s right to fees and costs by first referencing the bringing of an action by either party, to adjudicate the party’s right to the security deposit. Without looking into the legislative history, section (3)(c) seems to imply that the landlord must bring an action to adjudicate its right to the deposit following a timely objection by the tenant.
Perhaps this is another area where a clarification to the statute is needed.
Regards,
[cid:image002.png@01CEA3FF.F26C60E0]
Anthony J. Horky, Esquire
Anthony J. Horky, P.A.
2255 Glades Road, Suite 324A
Boca Raton, Florida 33431
T: 561.989.3206
F. 561.989.3204
www.horkylaw.comhttp://www.horkylaw.com
This message and the documents attached to it, if any, are intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is attorney-client privileged or confidential, and/or may contain attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please delete all electronic copies of this message and its attachments, if any, destroy any hard copies you may have created and notify me immediately at: ahorky@horkylaw.commailto:ahorky@horkylaw.com.
Tax Advice Disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS under Circular 230, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments), unless otherwise specifically stated, was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any matters addressed herein.
From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of David Weisman
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 4:19 PM
To: landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: [RPPTL LandTen] Action to recover Residential Security Deposit
At the end of the lease, tenant vacates and leaves the premises in poor condition. Within the 30 days, landlord provides a detailed notice of intention to impose a claim. Tenant, through counsel, timely objects to the claim. The statute does not say how long the parties have to file suit. Can the Landlord just sit and not return the deposit?
For how long?
David Weisman
Board Certified Real Estate Lawyer
Greenspoon Marder, P.A.
Trade Center South, Suite 700
100 West Cypress Creek Road
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33309
Phone 954-491-1120
Toll Free 888-491-1120
Direct Phone 954-343-6941
Direct Fax 954-343-6942
[cid:image003.jpg@01CEA3FB.5B164CF0]
The information contained in this transmission may be attorney/client privileged and confidential. It is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by reply e-mail.
Pursuant to Internal Revenue Service guidance, be advised that any federal tax advice contained in this written or electronic communication, including any attachments or enclosures, is not intended or written to be used and it
cannot be used by any person or entity for the purpose of (i) avoiding any tax penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service or any other U.S. Federal taxing authority or agency or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
A portion of our practice involves the collection of debt and any information you provide will be used for that purpose if we are attempting to collect a debt from you.
Hi All,
You may be aware that the Uniform Law Commission is looking to "standardize"
the ll/ten act in the US. As you know, the Florida Act is based on the 1972
Uniform Law but has changed substantially since.
My view on this is real simple.
Many of us Florida attorneys worked long and hard for over 20 years getting
the law changed to where we want it. Attempts like this can take on a life
of their own.
I hope the RPPTL opposes this and soon.
If you feel that a massive change to the Landlord/Tenant Act is not
warranted, PLEASE take a stand.
I attached some info I was copied with by someone from a local association.
Many of my large clients would like to see standard laws as they operate in
so many states. My feeling is the benefit of this will be far outweighed by
substituting a very good law with a "standard" law.
If you study other states, while our ll/ten law is not perfect, it is pretty
darn good and works.
Thanks and have a great Labor Day weekend.
Harry
PS: Is the Supreme Court Approved Lease going to be modified for the new law
change??????
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.
I ALWAYS tell my clients to return the balance if any that the tenant is to
get according to the claim AND to send it in the same envelope as the
Notice of Intention to Impose the Claim. Dispute or no dispute.
It royally cuts down on disputes.
Trust me on this. A tenant who gets his partial money back right away will
be far less apt to dispute than the person who is told he will not get the
full amount back and is holding an envelope that contains the bad news and
no money.
If they want, they can then dispute the balance, but money in hand really
cuts this down big time.
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
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 James Zink
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 3:35 PM
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Action to recover Residential Security Deposit
I think this is basically correct. I can tell you in my practice, the common
practice for a landlord is to keep the money unless sued. I think the
statute is left intentionally vague because, depending on the case, one side
may be presenting a completely bogus basis to either get the money returned
or to keep the money. By simply referring to the attorney fees, the statute
attempts to reach its desired result through implication of penalty: if you
do not have a serious basis to either keep the deposit or to demand its
return, you may want to reconsider holding it or pursuing it lest you may
end up owing significantly more than the deposit amount. Yes, it would be
easier if the statute said that the undisputed money must be returned and
the disputed money must be sued for, but I think the way it is written is
meant to encourage settlement rather than encourage litigation through
statutory process. It appears this is the line of thinking given the new
disclosures necessary under the amended law as it specifically requires that
language be put in encouraging settlement without litigation.
So, in answer to the question, the landlord is not required by statute, as
far as I can tell, to return the deposit, but should weigh the chances of
success or failure in court against the benefit of the deposit amount
itself.
Best,
James Zink, Esq.
From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org
[landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Anthony J. Horky
[ahorky@horkylaw.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 3:04 PM
To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee'
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Action to recover Residential Security Deposit
In my opinion, s. 83.49, Fla. Stat., does not go far enough to guide the
landlord and tenant on what happens after the landlord timely serves a
notice of claim and the tenant timely serves its objection to the claim.
Some argue that the landlord should not have to do anything after making its
claim, regardless of the objection by the tenant. Rather, it is the
tenants obligation to bring an action for breach of contract, specific
performance, declaratory judgment, etc., to recover its security deposit.
Others would argue that a landlord cannot self-adjudicate its right to claim
the deposit under the lease. When s. 83.49(3(a),(b) and (c), Fla. Stat.,
are read together, it seems to suggest that the landlord has to bring an
action to adjudicate its claim. After all, if the tenant fails to pay rent,
the landlord must enforce its rights through an eviction action to remove
the tenant. Arguably, if the tenant damages the unit, the landlord must
enforce its right to keep the security deposit through an action for
declaratory judgment or breach of contract.
Section 83.49 (3)(a) states the landlords obligation to return the deposit
or serve a written notice of its intent to impose a claim along with the
statutory language. Subsection (3(b) states that unless the tenant timely
objects to the imposition of the claim, the landlord may deduct the amount
of its claim from the security deposit, which is also contained in the
statutory notice. The problem is that the statute does not go far enough to
inform the landlord or tenant what happens after the tenant timely serves
its objection. Instead, subsection (3)(c) provides for the prevailing
partys right to fees and costs by first referencing the bringing of an
action by either party, to adjudicate the partys right to the security
deposit. Without looking into the legislative history, section (3)(c) seems
to imply that the landlord must bring an action to adjudicate its right to
the deposit following a timely objection by the tenant.
Perhaps this is another area where a clarification to the statute is needed.
Regards,
[cid:image002.png@01CEA3FF.F26C60E0]
Anthony J. Horky, Esquire
Anthony J. Horky, P.A.
2255 Glades Road, Suite 324A
Boca Raton, Florida 33431
T: 561.989.3206
F. 561.989.3204
www.horkylaw.comhttp://www.horkylaw.com
This message and the documents attached to it, if any, are intended only for
the use of the addressee and may contain information that is attorney-client
privileged or confidential, and/or may contain attorney work product. If
you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this communication in error, please delete all electronic copies of
this message and its attachments, if any, destroy any hard copies you may
have created and notify me immediately at:
ahorky@horkylaw.commailto:ahorky@horkylaw.com.
Tax Advice Disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the
IRS under Circular 230, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice
contained in this communication (including any attachments), unless
otherwise specifically stated, was not intended or written to be used, and
cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal
Revenue Code or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party
any matters addressed herein.
From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org
[mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of David Weisman
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 4:19 PM
To: landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: [RPPTL LandTen] Action to recover Residential Security Deposit
At the end of the lease, tenant vacates and leaves the premises in poor
condition. Within the 30 days, landlord provides a detailed notice of
intention to impose a claim. Tenant, through counsel, timely objects to the
claim. The statute does not say how long the parties have to file suit. Can
the Landlord just sit and not return the deposit?
For how long?
David Weisman
Board Certified Real Estate Lawyer
Greenspoon Marder, P.A.
Trade Center South, Suite 700
100 West Cypress Creek Road
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33309
Phone 954-491-1120
Toll Free 888-491-1120
Direct Phone 954-343-6941
Direct Fax 954-343-6942
[cid:image003.jpg@01CEA3FB.5B164CF0]
The information contained in this transmission may be attorney/client
privileged and confidential. It is intended only for the use of the
individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you
have
received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by reply
e-mail.
Pursuant to Internal Revenue Service guidance, be advised that any federal
tax advice contained in this written or electronic communication, including
any attachments or enclosures, is not intended or written to be used and it
cannot be used by any person or entity for the purpose of (i) avoiding any
tax penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service or any
other U.S. Federal taxing authority or agency or (ii) promoting, marketing
or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
A portion of our practice involves the collection of debt and any
information you provide will be used for that purpose if we are attempting
to collect a debt from you.
landten mailing list
landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org
http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/landten
I tend to agree with Mr. Zink's rationale on how sub (3)(c) was written. A
statutory mandate that an action must be brought will increase litigation
not prevent it.
Regards,
Anthony J. Horky, Esquire
Anthony J. Horky, P.A.
2255 Glades Road, Suite 324A
Boca Raton, Florida 33431
T: 561.989.3206
F. 561.989.3204
www.horkylaw.com
This message and the documents attached to it, if any, are intended only for
the use of the addressee and may contain information that is attorney-client
privileged or confidential, and/or may contain attorney work product. If
you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this communication in error, please delete all electronic copies of
this message and its attachments, if any, destroy any hard copies you may
have created and notify me immediately at: ahorky@horkylaw.com.
Tax Advice Disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the
IRS under Circular 230, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice
contained in this communication (including any attachments), unless
otherwise specifically stated, was not intended or written to be used, and
cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal
Revenue Code or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party
any matters addressed herein.
-----Original Message-----
From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org
[mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of James Zink
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 3:35 PM
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Action to recover Residential Security Deposit
I think this is basically correct. I can tell you in my practice, the common
practice for a landlord is to keep the money unless sued. I think the
statute is left intentionally vague because, depending on the case, one side
may be presenting a completely bogus basis to either get the money returned
or to keep the money. By simply referring to the attorney fees, the statute
attempts to reach its desired result through implication of penalty: if you
do not have a serious basis to either keep the deposit or to demand its
return, you may want to reconsider holding it or pursuing it lest you may
end up owing significantly more than the deposit amount. Yes, it would be
easier if the statute said that the undisputed money must be returned and
the disputed money must be sued for, but I think the way it is written is
meant to encourage settlement rather than encourage litigation through
statutory process. It appears this is the line of thinking given the new
disclosures necessary under the amended law as it specifically requires that
language be put in encouraging settlement without litigation.
So, in answer to the question, the landlord is not required by statute, as
far as I can tell, to return the deposit, but should weigh the chances of
success or failure in court against the benefit of the deposit amount
itself.
Best,
James Zink, Esq.
From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org
[landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Anthony J. Horky
[ahorky@horkylaw.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 3:04 PM
To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee'
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Action to recover Residential Security Deposit
In my opinion, s. 83.49, Fla. Stat., does not go far enough to guide the
landlord and tenant on what happens after the landlord timely serves a
notice of claim and the tenant timely serves its objection to the claim.
Some argue that the landlord should not have to do anything after making its
claim, regardless of the objection by the tenant. Rather, it is the
tenants obligation to bring an action for breach of contract, specific
performance, declaratory judgment, etc., to recover its security deposit.
Others would argue that a landlord cannot self-adjudicate its right to claim
the deposit under the lease. When s. 83.49(3(a),(b) and (c), Fla. Stat.,
are read together, it seems to suggest that the landlord has to bring an
action to adjudicate its claim. After all, if the tenant fails to pay rent,
the landlord must enforce its rights through an eviction action to remove
the tenant. Arguably, if the tenant damages the unit, the landlord must
enforce its right to keep the security deposit through an action for
declaratory judgment or breach of contract.
Section 83.49 (3)(a) states the landlords obligation to return the deposit
or serve a written notice of its intent to impose a claim along with the
statutory language. Subsection (3(b) states that unless the tenant timely
objects to the imposition of the claim, the landlord may deduct the amount
of its claim from the security deposit, which is also contained in the
statutory notice. The problem is that the statute does not go far enough to
inform the landlord or tenant what happens after the tenant timely serves
its objection. Instead, subsection (3)(c) provides for the prevailing
partys right to fees and costs by first referencing the bringing of an
action by either party, to adjudicate the partys right to the security
deposit. Without looking into the legislative history, section (3)(c) seems
to imply that the landlord must bring an action to adjudicate its right to
the deposit following a timely objection by the tenant.
Perhaps this is another area where a clarification to the statute is needed.
Regards,
[cid:image002.png@01CEA3FF.F26C60E0]
Anthony J. Horky, Esquire
Anthony J. Horky, P.A.
2255 Glades Road, Suite 324A
Boca Raton, Florida 33431
T: 561.989.3206
F. 561.989.3204
www.horkylaw.comhttp://www.horkylaw.com
This message and the documents attached to it, if any, are intended only for
the use of the addressee and may contain information that is attorney-client
privileged or confidential, and/or may contain attorney work product. If
you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this communication in error, please delete all electronic copies of
this message and its attachments, if any, destroy any hard copies you may
have created and notify me immediately at:
ahorky@horkylaw.commailto:ahorky@horkylaw.com.
Tax Advice Disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the
IRS under Circular 230, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice
contained in this communication (including any attachments), unless
otherwise specifically stated, was not intended or written to be used, and
cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal
Revenue Code or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party
any matters addressed herein.
From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org
[mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of David Weisman
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 4:19 PM
To: landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: [RPPTL LandTen] Action to recover Residential Security Deposit
At the end of the lease, tenant vacates and leaves the premises in poor
condition. Within the 30 days, landlord provides a detailed notice of
intention to impose a claim. Tenant, through counsel, timely objects to the
claim. The statute does not say how long the parties have to file suit. Can
the Landlord just sit and not return the deposit?
For how long?
David Weisman
Board Certified Real Estate Lawyer
Greenspoon Marder, P.A.
Trade Center South, Suite 700
100 West Cypress Creek Road
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33309
Phone 954-491-1120
Toll Free 888-491-1120
Direct Phone 954-343-6941
Direct Fax 954-343-6942
[cid:image003.jpg@01CEA3FB.5B164CF0]
The information contained in this transmission may be attorney/client
privileged and confidential. It is intended only for the use of the
individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you
have
received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by reply
e-mail.
Pursuant to Internal Revenue Service guidance, be advised that any federal
tax advice contained in this written or electronic communication, including
any attachments or enclosures, is not intended or written to be used and it
cannot be used by any person or entity for the purpose of (i) avoiding any
tax penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service or any
other U.S. Federal taxing authority or agency or (ii) promoting, marketing
or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
A portion of our practice involves the collection of debt and any
information you provide will be used for that purpose if we are attempting
to collect a debt from you.
landten mailing list
landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org
http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/landten
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.3392 / Virus Database: 3211/6615 - Release Date: 08/28/13
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.3392 / Virus Database: 3211/6615 - Release Date: 08/28/13
Group:
Harry baited me so here I go:
The following was in the HB 77 this year but was taken out. So it was clarified and one of the legislators (in his infinite wisdom) took it out in committee. (if you want to know who I can look it up).
IF YOU TIMELY OBJECT, THE LANDLORD MUST HOLD THE DEPOSIT AND EITHER YOU OR THE LANDLORD WILL HAVE TO FILE A LAWSUIT SO THAT THE COURT CAN RESOLVE THE DISPUTE.
Btw, my last highly contested security deposit dispute netted me over $14k in fees (which included a 2.0 multiplier). So if the landlord think he should not have to do anything after the tenant objects remind them the security deposit is the property of the tenant until the tenant vacates and if the tenant object to the claim on the security deposit the landlord has no right to remove the money until it is settled or until a judge decides who is the rightful owner of the security deposit (either party may bring a suit). The landlords who don't do anything after making its claim, regardless of the objection is depriving the tenant of due process. The problem is the landlord has the upper hand because the tenant usually does not have the money to file the claim and cannot find an attorney unless he can find one that will take the tenant's case on a contingent basis and then a multiplier should be awarded to that attorney.
Leonard P. Cabral, Esq.
Leonardcabral@lenslaw.com
HARRY: I am not sure this will make the list. I have been having some problems posting so. Please repost this if it does not make it to the list..
From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Heist, Weisse & Wolk
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 3:26 PM
To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee'
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Action to recover Residential Security Deposit
It is a shame we could not clarify this in the last law change.
The law is so unclear.
3(b) states that unless the tenant timely objects to the imposition of the claim, the landlord may deduct the amount of its claim from the security deposit.
Does this mean if they do object the landlord may not deduct? It would appear that way.
This forces the hand into litigation over such a small sum OR the broker holding the money in the escrow account forever.
FREC does not care if a licensee deducts (they won't put this in writing though) and the end of 83.49 relieved them of the old time procedures.
I am afraid to tell clients to just go ahead and do it because this could possibly be construed as civil theft.
Most of them do go ahead and do it. I have seen no bad ramifications but the tenant obviously did not call Leonard. :-)
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.comhttp://www.evict.com/
Email: harry@evict.commailto: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.orgmailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Anthony J. Horky
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 3:05 PM
To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee'
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Action to recover Residential Security Deposit
In my opinion, s. 83.49, Fla. Stat., does not go far enough to guide the landlord and tenant on what happens after the landlord timely serves a notice of claim and the tenant timely serves its objection to the claim. Some argue that the landlord should not have to do anything after making its claim, regardless of the objection by the tenant. Rather, it is the tenant's obligation to bring an action for breach of contract, specific performance, declaratory judgment, etc., to recover its security deposit. Others would argue that a landlord cannot self-adjudicate its right to claim the deposit under the lease. When s. 83.49(3(a),(b) and (c), Fla. Stat., are read together, it seems to suggest that the landlord has to bring an action to adjudicate its claim. After all, if the tenant fails to pay rent, the landlord must enforce its rights through an eviction action to remove the tenant. Arguably, if the tenant damages the unit, the landlord must enforce its right to keep the security deposit through an action for declaratory judgment or breach of contract.
Section 83.49 (3)(a) states the landlord's obligation to return the deposit or serve a written notice of its intent to impose a claim along with the statutory language. Subsection (3(b) states that unless the tenant timely objects to the imposition of the claim, the landlord may deduct the amount of its claim from the security deposit, which is also contained in the statutory notice. The problem is that the statute does not go far enough to inform the landlord or tenant what happens after the tenant timely serves its objection. Instead, subsection (3)(c) provides for the prevailing party's right to fees and costs by first referencing the bringing of an action by either party, to adjudicate the party's right to the security deposit. Without looking into the legislative history, section (3)(c) seems to imply that the landlord must bring an action to adjudicate its right to the deposit following a timely objection by the tenant.
Perhaps this is another area where a clarification to the statute is needed.
Regards,
[AJH Logo mark]
Anthony J. Horky, Esquire
Anthony J. Horky, P.A.
2255 Glades Road, Suite 324A
Boca Raton, Florida 33431
T: 561.989.3206
F. 561.989.3204
www.horkylaw.comhttp://www.horkylaw.com
This message and the documents attached to it, if any, are intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is attorney-client privileged or confidential, and/or may contain attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please delete all electronic copies of this message and its attachments, if any, destroy any hard copies you may have created and notify me immediately at: ahorky@horkylaw.commailto:ahorky@horkylaw.com.
Tax Advice Disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS under Circular 230, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments), unless otherwise specifically stated, was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any matters addressed herein.
From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of David Weisman
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 4:19 PM
To: landten@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: [RPPTL LandTen] Action to recover Residential Security Deposit
At the end of the lease, tenant vacates and leaves the premises in poor condition. Within the 30 days, landlord provides a detailed notice of intention to impose a claim. Tenant, through counsel, timely objects to the claim. The statute does not say how long the parties have to file suit. Can the Landlord just sit and not return the deposit?
For how long?
David Weisman
Board Certified Real Estate Lawyer
Greenspoon Marder, P.A.
Trade Center South, Suite 700
100 West Cypress Creek Road
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33309
Phone 954-491-1120
Toll Free 888-491-1120
Direct Phone 954-343-6941
Direct Fax 954-343-6942
[Email Logo -Resize 30]
The information contained in this transmission may be attorney/client privileged and confidential. It is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by reply e-mail.
Pursuant to Internal Revenue Service guidance, be advised that any federal tax advice contained in this written or electronic communication, including any attachments or enclosures, is not intended or written to be used and it
cannot be used by any person or entity for the purpose of (i) avoiding any tax penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service or any other U.S. Federal taxing authority or agency or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
A portion of our practice involves the collection of debt and any information you provide will be used for that purpose if we are attempting to collect a debt from you.
I made sure it was taken out. J
This shows a legislative history that goes against the idea of having to
hold it.
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 Leonard Cabral
Sent: Monday, September 02, 2013 4:25 AM
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Cc: hary@evit.com
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Action to recover Residential Security Deposit
Group:
Harry baited me so here I go:
The following was in the HB 77 this year but was taken out. So it was
clarified and one of the legislators (in his infinite wisdom) took it out in
committee. (if you want to know who I can look it up).
IF YOU TIMELY OBJECT, THE LANDLORD MUST HOLD THE DEPOSIT AND EITHER YOU OR
THE LANDLORD WILL HAVE TO FILE A LAWSUIT SO THAT THE COURT CAN RESOLVE THE
DISPUTE.
Btw, my last highly contested security deposit dispute netted me over $14k
in fees (which included a 2.0 multiplier). So if the landlord think he
should not have to do anything after the tenant objects remind them the
security deposit is the property of the tenant until the tenant vacates and
if the tenant object to the claim on the security deposit the landlord has
no right to remove the money until it is settled or until a judge decides
who is the rightful owner of the security deposit (either party may bring a
suit). The landlords who don't do anything after making its claim,
regardless of the objection is depriving the tenant of due process. The
problem is the landlord has the upper hand because the tenant usually does
not have the money to file the claim and cannot find an attorney unless he
can find one that will take the tenant's case on a contingent basis and then
a multiplier should be awarded to that attorney.
Leonard P. Cabral, Esq.
HARRY: I am not sure this will make the list. I have been having some
problems posting so. Please repost this if it does not make it to the
list..
From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org
[mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Heist, Weisse &
Wolk
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 3:26 PM
To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee'
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Action to recover Residential Security Deposit
It is a shame we could not clarify this in the last law change.
The law is so unclear.
3(b) states that unless the tenant timely objects to the imposition of the
claim, the landlord may deduct the amount of its claim from the security
deposit.
Does this mean if they do object the landlord may not deduct? It would
appear that way.
This forces the hand into litigation over such a small sum OR the broker
holding the money in the escrow account forever.
FREC does not care if a licensee deducts (they won't put this in writing
though) and the end of 83.49 relieved them of the old time procedures.
I am afraid to tell clients to just go ahead and do it because this could
possibly be construed as civil theft.
Most of them do go ahead and do it. I have seen no bad ramifications but the
tenant obviously did not call Leonard. :-)
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 Anthony J. Horky
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 3:05 PM
To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee'
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Action to recover Residential Security Deposit
In my opinion, s. 83.49, Fla. Stat., does not go far enough to guide the
landlord and tenant on what happens after the landlord timely serves a
notice of claim and the tenant timely serves its objection to the claim.
Some argue that the landlord should not have to do anything after making its
claim, regardless of the objection by the tenant. Rather, it is the
tenant's obligation to bring an action for breach of contract, specific
performance, declaratory judgment, etc., to recover its security deposit.
Others would argue that a landlord cannot self-adjudicate its right to claim
the deposit under the lease. When s. 83.49(3(a),(b) and (c), Fla. Stat.,
are read together, it seems to suggest that the landlord has to bring an
action to adjudicate its claim. After all, if the tenant fails to pay rent,
the landlord must enforce its rights through an eviction action to remove
the tenant. Arguably, if the tenant damages the unit, the landlord must
enforce its right to keep the security deposit through an action for
declaratory judgment or breach of contract.
Section 83.49 (3)(a) states the landlord's obligation to return the deposit
or serve a written notice of its intent to impose a claim along with the
statutory language. Subsection (3(b) states that unless the tenant timely
objects to the imposition of the claim, the landlord may deduct the amount
of its claim from the security deposit, which is also contained in the
statutory notice. The problem is that the statute does not go far enough to
inform the landlord or tenant what happens after the tenant timely serves
its objection. Instead, subsection (3)(c) provides for the prevailing
party's right to fees and costs by first referencing the bringing of an
action by either party, to adjudicate the party's right to the security
deposit. Without looking into the legislative history, section (3)(c) seems
to imply that the landlord must bring an action to adjudicate its right to
the deposit following a timely objection by the tenant.
Perhaps this is another area where a clarification to the statute is needed.
Regards,
AJH Logo mark
Anthony J. Horky, Esquire
Anthony J. Horky, P.A.
2255 Glades Road, Suite 324A
Boca Raton, Florida 33431
T: 561.989.3206
F. 561.989.3204
This message and the documents attached to it, if any, are intended only for
the use of the addressee and may contain information that is attorney-client
privileged or confidential, and/or may contain attorney work product. If
you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this communication in error, please delete all electronic copies of
this message and its attachments, if any, destroy any hard copies you may
have created and notify me immediately at: mailto:ahorky@horkylaw.com
ahorky@horkylaw.com.
Tax Advice Disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the
IRS under Circular 230, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice
contained in this communication (including any attachments), unless
otherwise specifically stated, was not intended or written to be used, and
cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal
Revenue Code or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party
any matters addressed herein.
From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org
[mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of David Weisman
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 4:19 PM
To: landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: [RPPTL LandTen] Action to recover Residential Security Deposit
At the end of the lease, tenant vacates and leaves the premises in poor
condition. Within the 30 days, landlord provides a detailed notice of
intention to impose a claim. Tenant, through counsel, timely objects to the
claim. The statute does not say how long the parties have to file suit. Can
the Landlord just sit and not return the deposit?
For how long?
David Weisman
Board Certified Real Estate Lawyer
Greenspoon Marder, P.A.
Trade Center South, Suite 700
100 West Cypress Creek Road
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33309
Phone 954-491-1120
Toll Free 888-491-1120
Direct Phone 954-343-6941
Direct Fax 954-343-6942
Email Logo -Resize 30
The information contained in this transmission may be attorney/client
privileged and confidential. It is intended only for the use of the
individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you
have
received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by reply
e-mail.
Pursuant to Internal Revenue Service guidance, be advised that any federal
tax advice contained in this written or electronic communication, including
any attachments or enclosures, is not intended or written to be used and it
cannot be used by any person or entity for the purpose of (i) avoiding any
tax penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service or any
other U.S. Federal taxing authority or agency or (ii) promoting, marketing
or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
A portion of our practice involves the collection of debt and any
information you provide will be used for that purpose if we are attempting
to collect a debt from you.
