This seems like an issue that might be ripe for a legislative fix.  The rent deposit statute was intended to speed up the process of eviction for non-payment of rent.  It appears that it may be having the opposite effect.

[http://www.shutts.com/shutts100.jpg]
Arthur J. Menor
Partner

Shutts & Bowen LLP
1100 CityPlace Tower, 525 Okeechobee Boulevard | West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Direct: (561) 650-8510 | Fax: (561) 822-5510
E-Mailmailto:AMenor@shutts.com | Biographyhttp://www.shutts.com/attorneys-Arthur-Menor.html | V-Cardhttp://www.shutts.com/vcard-132.vcf | Websitehttp://www.shutts.com/

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Anthony J. Horky
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 4:41 PM
To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee'
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Jurisdiction Question

It is true that county court has jurisdiction over the possession count.  However, what if the tenant disputes the amount of rent due and files a motion to determine the amount of rent due?  Does the county court have jurisdiction to adjudicate and enter an order that tenant deposit an amount of money that exceeds its jurisdictional limit?  I'm not so sure on that.

Anthony J. Horky, Esquire
Anthony J. Horky, P.A.
301 Yamato Road, Suite 1240
Boca Raton, Florida 33431
Telephone: (561) 226-4628
Facsimile: (561) 994-6693
Email:  ajhorky.law@gmail.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: ajhorky.law@gmail.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 Manuel Farach
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 4:30 PM
To: lesstevens@earthlink.net; RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Cc: 'James Reyer'
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Jurisdiction Question

County court has jurisdiction of "pure" possession actions no matter how much rent is in default. If there were a second count for damages in excess of $15,000, then you could move to transfer to circuit court

[http://www.richmangreer.com/emailsig/logo.gif]

Manuel Farach / Of Counsel - Board Certified in Real Estate Law and Business Litigation by The Florida Bar

Richman Greer P.A.
One Clearlake Centre
Suite 1504
250 Australian Avenue South
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
Office: 561.803.3500
Fax:
Direct:
Email:
www.RichmanGreer.comhttp://www.RichmanGreer.com

[http://www.richmangreer.com/emailsig/meritas.gif]

To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform
you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including
any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for
the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii)
promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter
addressed herein.
This message contains confidential information and is intended for lesstevens@earthlink.net, landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org, jrlaw10@bellsouth.net. If you are not
lesstevens@earthlink.net, landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org, jrlaw10@bellsouth.net you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in
reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. E-mail
transmission cannot be guarranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender (MFarach@richmangreer.com) therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which
arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please request a hard-copy version.

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of lesstevens
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 4:26 PM
To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee'
Cc: 'James Reyer'
Subject: [RPPTL LandTen] Jurisdiction Question

Stupid Question time:

I have a commercial client who owes rents significantly in excess of the $15k jurisdiction of the County Court. Suit is filed in County Court ONLY for eviction. Can this be sustained, or do I have a basis for moving the Court to transfer the case to the Circuit Court despite there being no demand for money?

Les H. Stevens, Esquire
Les H. Stevens, P.A.
5301 North Federal Highway
Suite 130
Boca Raton, Florida 33487
Tel. - (561) 989-9797
Fax - (561) 989-8484
E-Mail - lesstevens@earthlink.net

THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHOM IT IS ADDRESSED, AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL AND/OR OTHERWISE EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS TRANSMITTAL IN ERROR, PLEASE DELETE IT AND NOTIFY THIS OFFICE IMMEDIATELY

</pre>IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE:  Pursuant to recently enacted<br>U.S. Treasury Department Regulations, we are now required<br>to advise you that, unless otherwise expressly indicated,<br>any federal tax advice expressed above was neither<br>written nor intended by the sender or this firm to be<br>used and cannot be used by any taxpayer for the purpose <br>of avoiding penalties that may be imposed under U.S. tax <br>law.  If any person uses or refers to any such tax advice<br>in promoting, marketing or recommending a partnership or<br>other entity, investment plan or arrangement to any <br>taxpayer, then the advice should be considered to have<br>been written to support the promotion or marketing by a <br>person other than the sender or this firm of that <br>transaction or matter, and such taxpayer should seek<br>advice based on the taxpayer's particular circumstances<br>from an independent tax advisor.<br><br><br>The information in this email transmission is privileged<br>and confidential.  If you are not the intended recipient,<br>nor the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to<br>the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any<br>dissemination or copying of this transmission (including<br>any attachments) is strictly prohibited.  If you have<br>received this email in error, please notify the sender by<br>email reply.  Thank you.<br><pre>

All:  I think the jurisdiction statute when read in conjunction with Chapter 83 answers Les’s question and obviates the need for a statutory amendment.  In my opinion, the summary nature of possession actions still remains, but where the parties are in dispute over amounts exceeding $15,000.00 (or any amount), they have a right to an evidentiary hearing to adjudicate this issue.  The “delay” in proceeding in circuit court seems to exist because of an overloaded court system, not from an ambiguity or other procedural problem with §§ 51.011 or 83.21, Fla. Stat.

Here’s my view:

Section 34.11(2), Fla. Stat., states that “[t][he county court shall have exclusive jurisdiction of proceedings relating to the right of possession of real property and to the forcible or unlawful detention of lands and tenants, except that the circuit court has jurisdiction if the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional limits of the county court…”  Emphasis added.

Section 83.232, Fla. Stat. states that “[i]n an action by the landlord which includes a claim for possession of real property”  if the tenant contests the amount alleged in the complaint, or interposes the defense of payment or satisfaction of the rent in the amount alleged in the complaint, the court must make a determination of what rent, if any is due and enter an order that the tenant pay the amount determined by the court as due into the court registry.

I think that § 34.11(2), Fla. Stat. supports Manuel’s statement that county courts have jurisdiction over “pure” possession actions, but this implies an action where there is no dispute as to the amount of rent due.  If the tenant disputes the amount of rent due or interposes the defense of payment, this places the amount of rent into the category of the amount in controversy , which will require an evidentiary hearing to resolve.  A plain meaning interpretation of “except that the circuit court has jurisdiction if the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional limits of the county court” means that in possession actions where the tenant disputes the amount of rent due or interposes a defense of payment, the county court cannot enter an order or adjudicate an amount in controversy that exceeds its jurisdictional limit of $15,000.00.

Any alternative arguments will be appreciated.

Thank you.

Anthony J. Horky, Esquire

Anthony J. Horky, P.A.

301 Yamato Road, Suite 1240

Boca Raton, Florida 33431

Telephone: (561) 226-4628

Facsimile: (561) 994-6693

Email:  ajhorky.law@gmail.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: ajhorky.law@gmail.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 Arthur J. Menor
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 6:27 PM
To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee'
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Jurisdiction Question

This seems like an issue that might be ripe for a legislative fix.  The rent deposit statute was intended to speed up the process of eviction for non-payment of rent.  It appears that it may be having the opposite effect.

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

Arthur J. Menor
Partner

Shutts & Bowen LLP
1100 CityPlace Tower, 525 Okeechobee Boulevard | West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Direct: (561) 650-8510 | Fax: (561) 822-5510
mailto:AMenor@shutts.com E-Mail |  http://www.shutts.com/attorneys-Arthur-Menor.html Biography |  http://www.shutts.com/vcard-132.vcf V-Card |  http://www.shutts.com/ Website

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Anthony J. Horky
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 4:41 PM
To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee'
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Jurisdiction Question

It is true that county court has jurisdiction over the possession count.  However, what if the tenant disputes the amount of rent due and files a motion to determine the amount of rent due?  Does the county court have jurisdiction to adjudicate and enter an order that tenant deposit an amount of money that exceeds its jurisdictional limit?  I’m not so sure on that.

Anthony J. Horky, Esquire

Anthony J. Horky, P.A.

301 Yamato Road, Suite 1240

Boca Raton, Florida 33431

Telephone: (561) 226-4628

Facsimile: (561) 994-6693

Email:  ajhorky.law@gmail.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: ajhorky.law@gmail.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 Manuel Farach
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 4:30 PM
To: lesstevens@earthlink.net; RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Cc: 'James Reyer'
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Jurisdiction Question

County court has jurisdiction of “pure” possession actions no matter how much rent is in default. If there were a second count for damages in excess of $15,000, then you could move to transfer to circuit court

http://www.richmangreer.com/emailsig/logo.gif

Manuel Farach / Of Counsel - Board Certified in Real Estate Law and Business Litigation by The Florida Bar

Richman Greer P.A.
One Clearlake Centre
Suite 1504
250 Australian Avenue South
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
Office: 561.803.3500
Fax:
Direct:
Email:
www.RichmanGreer.com

http://www.richmangreer.com/emailsig/meritas.gif

To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform
you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including
any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for
the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii)
promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter
addressed herein.
This message contains confidential information and is intended for lesstevens@earthlink.net, landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org, jrlaw10@bellsouth.net. If you are not
lesstevens@earthlink.net, landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org, jrlaw10@bellsouth.net you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in
reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. E-mail
transmission cannot be guarranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender (MFarach@richmangreer.com) therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which
arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please request a hard-copy version.

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of lesstevens
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 4:26 PM
To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee'
Cc: 'James Reyer'
Subject: [RPPTL LandTen] Jurisdiction Question

Stupid Question time:

I have a commercial client who owes rents significantly in excess of the $15k jurisdiction of the County Court. Suit is filed in County Court ONLY for eviction. Can this be sustained, or do I have a basis for moving the Court to transfer the case to the Circuit Court despite there being no demand for money?

Les H. Stevens, Esquire
Les H. Stevens, P.A.
5301 North Federal Highway
Suite 130
Boca Raton, Florida 33487
Tel. - (561) 989-9797
Fax - (561) 989-8484
E-Mail - lesstevens@earthlink.net

THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHOM IT IS ADDRESSED, AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL AND/OR OTHERWISE EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS TRANSMITTAL IN ERROR, PLEASE DELETE IT AND NOTIFY THIS OFFICE IMMEDIATELY

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.

My argument in the past has been that a “pure” possession action does not determine how much the tenant owes, it only determines whether there is a default entitling the landlord to possession and the amount of the default (whether it is $100 or $100,000) is immaterial. Tenants have, of course, argued that the amount allegedly in default was in excess of the County Court’s jurisdiction and the case should therefore be transferred to Circuit Court. I replied that if the Tenant’s argument was correct, then section 34.011 (2) would say “the County Court has jurisdiction for actions for possession where the amount in default is within the monetary jurisdiction of the County Court,” i.e., a repeat of section 1. By pointing that out, the courts have realized the Tenant’s argument makes no sense.
I can’t say I have had this issue come up a lot of times in my practice (maybe twice?), but my argument has been successful. I defer, however, to my colleagues who litigate evictions day in and day out and have more experience than I do with this issue.
I’ve always thought “amount in controversy” is the issue of money damages, i.e., how much money you are asking for. Technically speaking, there is no “amount in controversy” in a “pure” possession action because the landlord is not asking for money damages. If Landlord files a two-count complaint (one count asking for money damages), then I think “amount in controversy” comes into play.
I’m really curious what others think on this issue.
Thanks
Manny

[http://www.richmangreer.com/emailsig/logo.gif]

Manuel Farach / Of Counsel - Board Certified in Real Estate Law and Business Litigation by The Florida Bar

Richman Greer P.A.
One Clearlake Centre
Suite 1504
250 Australian Avenue South
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
Office: 561.803.3500
Fax:
Direct:
Email:
www.RichmanGreer.comhttp://www.RichmanGreer.com

[http://www.richmangreer.com/emailsig/meritas.gif]

To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform
you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including
any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for
the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii)
promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter
addressed herein.
This message contains confidential information and is intended for landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org. If you are not
landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in
reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. E-mail
transmission cannot be guarranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender (MFarach@richmangreer.com) therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which
arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please request a hard-copy version.

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Anthony J. Horky
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 10:45 AM
To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee'
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Jurisdiction Question

All:  I think the jurisdiction statute when read in conjunction with Chapter 83 answers Les’s question and obviates the need for a statutory amendment.  In my opinion, the summary nature of possession actions still remains, but where the parties are in dispute over amounts exceeding $15,000.00 (or any amount), they have a right to an evidentiary hearing to adjudicate this issue.  The “delay” in proceeding in circuit court seems to exist because of an overloaded court system, not from an ambiguity or other procedural problem with §§ 51.011 or 83.21, Fla. Stat.

Here’s my view:

Section 34.11(2), Fla. Stat., states that “[t][he county court shall have exclusive jurisdiction of proceedings relating to the right of possession of real property and to the forcible or unlawful detention of lands and tenants, except that the circuit court has jurisdiction if the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional limits of the county court…”  Emphasis added.

Section 83.232, Fla. Stat. states that “[i]n an action by the landlord which includes a claim for possession of real property”  if the tenant contests the amount alleged in the complaint, or interposes the defense of payment or satisfaction of the rent in the amount alleged in the complaint, the court must make a determination of what rent, if any is due and enter an order that the tenant pay the amount determined by the court as due into the court registry.

I think that § 34.11(2), Fla. Stat. supports Manuel’s statement that county courts have jurisdiction over “pure” possession actions, but this implies an action where there is no dispute as to the amount of rent due.  If the tenant disputes the amount of rent due or interposes the defense of payment, this places the amount of rent into the category of the amount in controversy , which will require an evidentiary hearing to resolve.  A plain meaning interpretation of “except that the circuit court has jurisdiction if the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional limits of the county court” means that in possession actions where the tenant disputes the amount of rent due or interposes a defense of payment, the county court cannot enter an order or adjudicate an amount in controversy that exceeds its jurisdictional limit of $15,000.00.

Any alternative arguments will be appreciated.

Thank you.

Anthony J. Horky, Esquire
Anthony J. Horky, P.A.
301 Yamato Road, Suite 1240
Boca Raton, Florida 33431
Telephone: (561) 226-4628
Facsimile: (561) 994-6693
Email:  ajhorky.law@gmail.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: ajhorky.law@gmail.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 Arthur J. Menor
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 6:27 PM
To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee'
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Jurisdiction Question

This seems like an issue that might be ripe for a legislative fix.  The rent deposit statute was intended to speed up the process of eviction for non-payment of rent.  It appears that it may be having the opposite effect.

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

Arthur J. Menor
Partner

Shutts & Bowen LLP
1100 CityPlace Tower, 525 Okeechobee Boulevard | West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Direct: (561) 650-8510 | Fax: (561) 822-5510
E-Mailmailto:AMenor@shutts.com | Biographyhttp://www.shutts.com/attorneys-Arthur-Menor.html | V-Cardhttp://www.shutts.com/vcard-132.vcf | Websitehttp://www.shutts.com/

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Anthony J. Horky
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 4:41 PM
To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee'
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Jurisdiction Question
It is true that county court has jurisdiction over the possession count.  However, what if the tenant disputes the amount of rent due and files a motion to determine the amount of rent due?  Does the county court have jurisdiction to adjudicate and enter an order that tenant deposit an amount of money that exceeds its jurisdictional limit?  I’m not so sure on that.

Anthony J. Horky, Esquire
Anthony J. Horky, P.A.
301 Yamato Road, Suite 1240
Boca Raton, Florida 33431
Telephone: (561) 226-4628
Facsimile: (561) 994-6693
Email:  ajhorky.law@gmail.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: ajhorky.law@gmail.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 Manuel Farach
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 4:30 PM
To: lesstevens@earthlink.net; RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Cc: 'James Reyer'
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Jurisdiction Question

County court has jurisdiction of “pure” possession actions no matter how much rent is in default. If there were a second count for damages in excess of $15,000, then you could move to transfer to circuit court

[http://www.richmangreer.com/emailsig/logo.gif]

Manuel Farach / Of Counsel - Board Certified in Real Estate Law and Business Litigation by The Florida Bar

Richman Greer P.A.
One Clearlake Centre
Suite 1504
250 Australian Avenue South
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
Office: 561.803.3500
Fax:
Direct:
Email:
www.RichmanGreer.comhttp://www.RichmanGreer.com

[http://www.richmangreer.com/emailsig/meritas.gif]

To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform
you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including
any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for
the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii)
promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter
addressed herein.
This message contains confidential information and is intended for lesstevens@earthlink.net, landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org, jrlaw10@bellsouth.net. If you are not
lesstevens@earthlink.net, landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org, jrlaw10@bellsouth.net you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in
reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. E-mail
transmission cannot be guarranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender (MFarach@richmangreer.com) therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which
arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please request a hard-copy version.
From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of lesstevens
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 4:26 PM
To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee'
Cc: 'James Reyer'
Subject: [RPPTL LandTen] Jurisdiction Question

Stupid Question time:

I have a commercial client who owes rents significantly in excess of the $15k jurisdiction of the County Court. Suit is filed in County Court ONLY for eviction. Can this be sustained, or do I have a basis for moving the Court to transfer the case to the Circuit Court despite there being no demand for money?

Les H. Stevens, Esquire
Les H. Stevens, P.A.
5301 North Federal Highway
Suite 130
Boca Raton, Florida 33487
Tel. - (561) 989-9797
Fax - (561) 989-8484
E-Mail - lesstevens@earthlink.net

THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHOM IT IS ADDRESSED, AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL AND/OR OTHERWISE EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS TRANSMITTAL IN ERROR, PLEASE DELETE IT AND NOTIFY THIS OFFICE IMMEDIATELY

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.

I concur with Manny and have used that argument successfully numerous times in Palm Beach, Broward, and Dade County Courts.  So far, only one Broward County Court Judge disagreed with the argument and insisted on transferring the case to Circuit Court.

Michael

Michael L. Grant, Esq.

RICHARD B. WARREN, P.A.

1555 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, Suite 1006

West Palm Beach, FL  33401

Telephone: (561) 681-9494 | Facsimile: (561) 681-9436

WWW.RBWARRENLAW.COM

The information contained in this e-mail transmission is privileged and confidential.  If you are not the intended recipient or an 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 e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail.  Thank you.

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Manuel Farach
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 6:56 PM
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Jurisdiction Question

My argument in the past has been that a “pure” possession action does not determine how much the tenant owes, it only determines whether there is a default entitling the landlord to possession and the amount of the default (whether it is $100 or $100,000) is immaterial. Tenants have, of course, argued that the amount allegedly in default was in excess of the County Court’s jurisdiction and the case should therefore be transferred to Circuit Court. I replied that if the Tenant’s argument was correct, then section 34.011 (2) would say “the County Court has jurisdiction for actions for possession where the amount in default is within the monetary jurisdiction of the County Court,” i.e., a repeat of section 1. By pointing that out, the courts have realized the Tenant’s argument makes no sense.

I can’t say I have had this issue come up a lot of times in my practice (maybe twice?), but my argument has been successful. I defer, however, to my colleagues who litigate evictions day in and day out and have more experience than I do with this issue.

I’ve always thought “amount in controversy” is the issue of money damages, i.e., how much money you are asking for. Technically speaking, there is no “amount in controversy” in a “pure” possession action because the landlord is not asking for money damages. If Landlord files a two-count complaint (one count asking for money damages), then I think “amount in controversy” comes into play.

I’m really curious what others think on this issue.

Thanks

Manny

http://www.richmangreer.com/emailsig/logo.gif

Manuel Farach / Of Counsel - Board Certified in Real Estate Law and Business Litigation by The Florida Bar

Richman Greer P.A.
One Clearlake Centre
Suite 1504
250 Australian Avenue South
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
Office: 561.803.3500
Fax:
Direct:
Email:
www.RichmanGreer.com

http://www.richmangreer.com/emailsig/meritas.gif

To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform
you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including
any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for
the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii)
promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter
addressed herein.
This message contains confidential information and is intended for landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org. If you are not
landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in
reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. E-mail
transmission cannot be guarranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender (MFarach@richmangreer.com) therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which
arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please request a hard-copy version.

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Anthony J. Horky
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 10:45 AM
To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee'
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Jurisdiction Question

All:  I think the jurisdiction statute when read in conjunction with Chapter 83 answers Les’s question and obviates the need for a statutory amendment.  In my opinion, the summary nature of possession actions still remains, but where the parties are in dispute over amounts exceeding $15,000.00 (or any amount), they have a right to an evidentiary hearing to adjudicate this issue.  The “delay” in proceeding in circuit court seems to exist because of an overloaded court system, not from an ambiguity or other procedural problem with §§ 51.011 or 83.21, Fla. Stat.

Here’s my view:

Section 34.11(2), Fla. Stat., states that “[t][he county court shall have exclusive jurisdiction of proceedings relating to the right of possession of real property and to the forcible or unlawful detention of lands and tenants, except that the circuit court has jurisdiction if the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional limits of the county court…”  Emphasis added.

Section 83.232, Fla. Stat. states that “[i]n an action by the landlord which includes a claim for possession of real property”  if the tenant contests the amount alleged in the complaint, or interposes the defense of payment or satisfaction of the rent in the amount alleged in the complaint, the court must make a determination of what rent, if any is due and enter an order that the tenant pay the amount determined by the court as due into the court registry.

I think that § 34.11(2), Fla. Stat. supports Manuel’s statement that county courts have jurisdiction over “pure” possession actions, but this implies an action where there is no dispute as to the amount of rent due.  If the tenant disputes the amount of rent due or interposes the defense of payment, this places the amount of rent into the category of the amount in controversy , which will require an evidentiary hearing to resolve.  A plain meaning interpretation of “except that the circuit court has jurisdiction if the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional limits of the county court” means that in possession actions where the tenant disputes the amount of rent due or interposes a defense of payment, the county court cannot enter an order or adjudicate an amount in controversy that exceeds its jurisdictional limit of $15,000.00.

Any alternative arguments will be appreciated.

Thank you.

Anthony J. Horky, Esquire

Anthony J. Horky, P.A.

301 Yamato Road, Suite 1240

Boca Raton, Florida 33431

Telephone: (561) 226-4628

Facsimile: (561) 994-6693

Email:  ajhorky.law@gmail.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: ajhorky.law@gmail.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 Arthur J. Menor
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 6:27 PM
To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee'
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Jurisdiction Question

This seems like an issue that might be ripe for a legislative fix.  The rent deposit statute was intended to speed up the process of eviction for non-payment of rent.  It appears that it may be having the opposite effect.

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

Arthur J. Menor
Partner

Shutts & Bowen LLP
1100 CityPlace Tower, 525 Okeechobee Boulevard | West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Direct: (561) 650-8510 | Fax: (561) 822-5510
E-Mail mailto:AMenor@shutts.com  | Biography http://www.shutts.com/attorneys-Arthur-Menor.html  | V-Card http://www.shutts.com/vcard-132.vcf  | Website http://www.shutts.com/

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Anthony J. Horky
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 4:41 PM
To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee'
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Jurisdiction Question

It is true that county court has jurisdiction over the possession count.  However, what if the tenant disputes the amount of rent due and files a motion to determine the amount of rent due?  Does the county court have jurisdiction to adjudicate and enter an order that tenant deposit an amount of money that exceeds its jurisdictional limit?  I’m not so sure on that.  

 

Anthony J. Horky, Esquire

Anthony J. Horky, P.A.

301 Yamato Road, Suite 1240

Boca Raton, Florida 33431

Telephone: (561) 226-4628

Facsimile: (561) 994-6693

Email:  ajhorky.law@gmail.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: ajhorky.law@gmail.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 Manuel Farach
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 4:30 PM
To: lesstevens@earthlink.net; RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Cc: 'James Reyer'
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Jurisdiction Question

 

County court has jurisdiction of “pure” possession actions no matter how much rent is in default. If there were a second count for damages in excess of $15,000, then you could move to transfer to circuit court

 

 <http://www.richmangreer.com/emailsig/logo.gif> 

Manuel Farach / Of Counsel - Board Certified in Real Estate Law and Business Litigation by The Florida Bar

Richman Greer P.A.
One Clearlake Centre
Suite 1504
250 Australian Avenue South
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
Office: 561.803.3500
Fax: 
Direct:
Email: 
www.RichmanGreer.com

 <http://www.richmangreer.com/emailsig/meritas.gif> 

To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform 
you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including 
any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for 
the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) 
promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter 
addressed herein. 
This message contains confidential information and is intended for lesstevens@earthlink.net, landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org, jrlaw10@bellsouth.net. If you are not 
lesstevens@earthlink.net, landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org, jrlaw10@bellsouth.net you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in 
reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. E-mail 
transmission cannot be guarranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender (MFarach@richmangreer.com) therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which 
arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please request a hard-copy version.

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of lesstevens
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 4:26 PM
To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee'
Cc: 'James Reyer'
Subject: [RPPTL LandTen] Jurisdiction Question

 

Stupid Question time:

 

I have a commercial client who owes rents significantly in excess of the $15k jurisdiction of the County Court. Suit is filed in County Court ONLY for eviction. Can this be sustained, or do I have a basis for moving the Court to transfer the case to the Circuit Court despite there being no demand for money?

 

 

Les H. Stevens, Esquire
Les H. Stevens, P.A.
5301 North Federal Highway
Suite 130
Boca Raton, Florida 33487
Tel. - (561) 989-9797
Fax - (561) 989-8484
E-Mail - lesstevens@earthlink.net

 

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHOM IT IS ADDRESSED, AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL AND/OR OTHERWISE EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS TRANSMITTAL IN ERROR, PLEASE DELETE IT AND NOTIFY THIS OFFICE IMMEDIATELY

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.

If judges are not consistent on this point, maybe Art is correct that we need a legislative fix (or at least a clarification)

[http://www.richmangreer.com/emailsig/logo.gif]

Manuel Farach / Of Counsel - Board Certified in Real Estate Law and Business Litigation by The Florida Bar

Richman Greer P.A.
One Clearlake Centre
Suite 1504
250 Australian Avenue South
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
Office: 561.803.3500
Fax: 561.820.1608
Direct: 561.803.3501
Email: MFarach@richmangreer.com
www.RichmanGreer.comhttp://www.RichmanGreer.com

[http://www.richmangreer.com/emailsig/meritas.gif]

To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform
you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including
any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for
the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii)
promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter
addressed herein.

This message contains confidential information and is intended for landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org. If you are not
landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in
reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. E-mail
transmission cannot be guarranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender (MFarach@richmangreer.com) therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which
arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please request a hard-copy version.

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Michael Grant
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 9:18 AM
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Jurisdiction Question

I concur with Manny and have used that argument successfully numerous times in Palm Beach, Broward, and Dade County Courts.  So far, only one Broward County Court Judge disagreed with the argument and insisted on transferring the case to Circuit Court.

Michael

Michael L. Grant, Esq.
RICHARD B. WARREN, P.A.
1555 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, Suite 1006
West Palm Beach, FL  33401
Telephone: (561) 681-9494 | Facsimile: (561) 681-9436
WWW.RBWARRENLAW.COMhttp://WWW.RBWARRENLAW.COM

[Description: Description: cid:image001.jpg@01CBA5CE.BF828880]

The information contained in this e-mail transmission is privileged and confidential.  If you are not the intended recipient or an 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 e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail.  Thank you.

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Manuel Farach
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 6:56 PM
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Jurisdiction Question

My argument in the past has been that a “pure” possession action does not determine how much the tenant owes, it only determines whether there is a default entitling the landlord to possession and the amount of the default (whether it is $100 or $100,000) is immaterial. Tenants have, of course, argued that the amount allegedly in default was in excess of the County Court’s jurisdiction and the case should therefore be transferred to Circuit Court. I replied that if the Tenant’s argument was correct, then section 34.011 (2) would say “the County Court has jurisdiction for actions for possession where the amount in default is within the monetary jurisdiction of the County Court,” i.e., a repeat of section 1. By pointing that out, the courts have realized the Tenant’s argument makes no sense.
I can’t say I have had this issue come up a lot of times in my practice (maybe twice?), but my argument has been successful. I defer, however, to my colleagues who litigate evictions day in and day out and have more experience than I do with this issue.
I’ve always thought “amount in controversy” is the issue of money damages, i.e., how much money you are asking for. Technically speaking, there is no “amount in controversy” in a “pure” possession action because the landlord is not asking for money damages. If Landlord files a two-count complaint (one count asking for money damages), then I think “amount in controversy” comes into play.
I’m really curious what others think on this issue.
Thanks
Manny

[http://www.richmangreer.com/emailsig/logo.gif]

Manuel Farach / Of Counsel - Board Certified in Real Estate Law and Business Litigation by The Florida Bar

Richman Greer P.A.
One Clearlake Centre
Suite 1504
250 Australian Avenue South
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
Office: 561.803.3500
Fax:
Direct:
Email:
www.RichmanGreer.comhttp://www.RichmanGreer.com

[http://www.richmangreer.com/emailsig/meritas.gif]

To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform
you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including
any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for
the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii)
promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter
addressed herein.
This message contains confidential information and is intended for landten@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org. If you are not
landten@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in
reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. E-mail
transmission cannot be guarranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender (MFarach@richmangreer.commailto:MFarach@richmangreer.com) therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which
arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please request a hard-copy version.
From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Anthony J. Horky
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 10:45 AM
To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee'
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Jurisdiction Question

All:  I think the jurisdiction statute when read in conjunction with Chapter 83 answers Les’s question and obviates the need for a statutory amendment.  In my opinion, the summary nature of possession actions still remains, but where the parties are in dispute over amounts exceeding $15,000.00 (or any amount), they have a right to an evidentiary hearing to adjudicate this issue.  The “delay” in proceeding in circuit court seems to exist because of an overloaded court system, not from an ambiguity or other procedural problem with §§ 51.011 or 83.21, Fla. Stat.

Here’s my view:

Section 34.11(2), Fla. Stat., states that “[t][he county court shall have exclusive jurisdiction of proceedings relating to the right of possession of real property and to the forcible or unlawful detention of lands and tenants, except that the circuit court has jurisdiction if the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional limits of the county court…”  Emphasis added.

Section 83.232, Fla. Stat. states that “[i]n an action by the landlord which includes a claim for possession of real property”  if the tenant contests the amount alleged in the complaint, or interposes the defense of payment or satisfaction of the rent in the amount alleged in the complaint, the court must make a determination of what rent, if any is due and enter an order that the tenant pay the amount determined by the court as due into the court registry.

I think that § 34.11(2), Fla. Stat. supports Manuel’s statement that county courts have jurisdiction over “pure” possession actions, but this implies an action where there is no dispute as to the amount of rent due.  If the tenant disputes the amount of rent due or interposes the defense of payment, this places the amount of rent into the category of the amount in controversy , which will require an evidentiary hearing to resolve.  A plain meaning interpretation of “except that the circuit court has jurisdiction if the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional limits of the county court” means that in possession actions where the tenant disputes the amount of rent due or interposes a defense of payment, the county court cannot enter an order or adjudicate an amount in controversy that exceeds its jurisdictional limit of $15,000.00.

Any alternative arguments will be appreciated.

Thank you.

Anthony J. Horky, Esquire
Anthony J. Horky, P.A.
301 Yamato Road, Suite 1240
Boca Raton, Florida 33431
Telephone: (561) 226-4628
Facsimile: (561) 994-6693
Email:  ajhorky.law@gmail.commailto:ajhorky.law@gmail.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: ajhorky.law@gmail.commailto:ajhorky.law@gmail.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 Arthur J. Menor
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 6:27 PM
To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee'
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Jurisdiction Question

This seems like an issue that might be ripe for a legislative fix.  The rent deposit statute was intended to speed up the process of eviction for non-payment of rent.  It appears that it may be having the opposite effect.

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

Arthur J. Menor
Partner

Shutts & Bowen LLP
1100 CityPlace Tower, 525 Okeechobee Boulevard | West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Direct: (561) 650-8510 | Fax: (561) 822-5510
E-Mailmailto:AMenor@shutts.com | Biographyhttp://www.shutts.com/attorneys-Arthur-Menor.html | V-Cardhttp://www.shutts.com/vcard-132.vcf | Websitehttp://www.shutts.com/

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Anthony J. Horky
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 4:41 PM
To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee'
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Jurisdiction Question
It is true that county court has jurisdiction over the possession count.  However, what if the tenant disputes the amount of rent due and files a motion to determine the amount of rent due?  Does the county court have jurisdiction to adjudicate and enter an order that tenant deposit an amount of money that exceeds its jurisdictional limit?  I’m not so sure on that.

Anthony J. Horky, Esquire
Anthony J. Horky, P.A.
301 Yamato Road, Suite 1240
Boca Raton, Florida 33431
Telephone: (561) 226-4628
Facsimile: (561) 994-6693
Email:  ajhorky.law@gmail.commailto:ajhorky.law@gmail.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: ajhorky.law@gmail.commailto:ajhorky.law@gmail.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 Manuel Farach
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 4:30 PM
To: lesstevens@earthlink.net; RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Cc: 'James Reyer'
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Jurisdiction Question

County court has jurisdiction of “pure” possession actions no matter how much rent is in default. If there were a second count for damages in excess of $15,000, then you could move to transfer to circuit court

[http://www.richmangreer.com/emailsig/logo.gif]

Manuel Farach / Of Counsel - Board Certified in Real Estate Law and Business Litigation by The Florida Bar

Richman Greer P.A.
One Clearlake Centre
Suite 1504
250 Australian Avenue South
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
Office: 561.803.3500
Fax:
Direct:
Email:
www.RichmanGreer.comhttp://www.RichmanGreer.com

[http://www.richmangreer.com/emailsig/meritas.gif]

To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform
you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including
any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for
the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii)
promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter
addressed herein.
This message contains confidential information and is intended for lesstevens@earthlink.netmailto:lesstevens@earthlink.net, landten@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org, jrlaw10@bellsouth.netmailto:jrlaw10@bellsouth.net. If you are not
lesstevens@earthlink.netmailto:lesstevens@earthlink.net, landten@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org, jrlaw10@bellsouth.netmailto:jrlaw10@bellsouth.net you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in
reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. E-mail
transmission cannot be guarranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender (MFarach@richmangreer.commailto:MFarach@richmangreer.com) therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which
arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please request a hard-copy version.
From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of lesstevens
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 4:26 PM
To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee'
Cc: 'James Reyer'
Subject: [RPPTL LandTen] Jurisdiction Question

Stupid Question time:

I have a commercial client who owes rents significantly in excess of the $15k jurisdiction of the County Court. Suit is filed in County Court ONLY for eviction. Can this be sustained, or do I have a basis for moving the Court to transfer the case to the Circuit Court despite there being no demand for money?

Les H. Stevens, Esquire
Les H. Stevens, P.A.
5301 North Federal Highway
Suite 130
Boca Raton, Florida 33487
Tel. - (561) 989-9797
Fax - (561) 989-8484
E-Mail - lesstevens@earthlink.netmailto:lesstevens@earthlink.net

THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHOM IT IS ADDRESSED, AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL AND/OR OTHERWISE EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS TRANSMITTAL IN ERROR, PLEASE DELETE IT AND NOTIFY THIS OFFICE IMMEDIATELY

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.

I have a Notice of Contest of Amount of Money to be Placed into the Court's Registry from the opposing attorney.  It is my understanding from reading info from members of this committee and the case law that the amount of rent that is due must be deposited into the Clerk's Registry before this motion can be heard.  Otherwise, a default can be entered.  Is this correct?

Beverly R. Barnett, Esq.

Thornton, Torrence & Barnett, P. A.

6709 Ridge Road Suite 106

Port Richey, FL 34668

727-845-6224

The information contained in this transmission is attorney 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 addressee, you are hereby notified that any dissemination or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by returning the original message to us.  Thank you.

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Cary Sabol
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 10:05 AM
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Jurisdiction Question

I would also concur with Manny, but a legislative clarification might also be a good idea to ensure unform application of the issue.
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: Michael Grant michael@rbwarrenlaw.com
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 9:17 AM
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Jurisdiction Question

I concur with Manny and have used that argument successfully numerous times in Palm Beach, Broward, and Dade County Courts.  So far, only one Broward County Court Judge disagreed with the argument and insisted on transferring the case to Circuit Court.

Michael

Michael L. Grant, Esq.
RICHARD B. WARREN, P.A.
1555 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, Suite 1006
West Palm Beach, FL  33401
Telephone: (561) 681-9494 | Facsimile: (561) 681-9436
WWW.RBWARRENLAW.COMhttp://WWW.RBWARRENLAW.COM

[cid:image001.jpg@01CC7EC9.EFBC67D0]

The information contained in this e-mail transmission is privileged and confidential.  If you are not the intended recipient or an 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 e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail.  Thank you.

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Manuel Farach
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 6:56 PM
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Jurisdiction Question

My argument in the past has been that a "pure" possession action does not determine how much the tenant owes, it only determines whether there is a default entitling the landlord to possession and the amount of the default (whether it is $100 or $100,000) is immaterial. Tenants have, of course, argued that the amount allegedly in default was in excess of the County Court's jurisdiction and the case should therefore be transferred to Circuit Court. I replied that if the Tenant's argument was correct, then section 34.011 (2) would say "the County Court has jurisdiction for actions for possession where the amount in default is within the monetary jurisdiction of the County Court," i.e., a repeat of section 1. By pointing that out, the courts have realized the Tenant's argument makes no sense.
I can't say I have had this issue come up a lot of times in my practice (maybe twice?), but my argument has been successful. I defer, however, to my colleagues who litigate evictions day in and day out and have more experience than I do with this issue.
I've always thought "amount in controversy" is the issue of money damages, i.e., how much money you are asking for. Technically speaking, there is no "amount in controversy" in a "pure" possession action because the landlord is not asking for money damages. If Landlord files a two-count complaint (one count asking for money damages), then I think "amount in controversy" comes into play.
I'm really curious what others think on this issue.
Thanks
Manny

[http://www.richmangreer.com/emailsig/logo.gif]
Manuel Farach / Of Counsel - Board Certified in Real Estate Law and Business Litigation by The Florida Bar
Richman Greer P.A.
One Clearlake Centre
Suite 1504
250 Australian Avenue South
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
Office: 561.803.3500
Fax:
Direct:
Email:
www.RichmanGreer.comhttp://www.RichmanGreer.com
[http://www.richmangreer.com/emailsig/meritas.gif]
To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform
you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including
any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for
the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii)
promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter
addressed herein.
This message contains confidential information and is intended for landten@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org. If you are not
landten@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in
reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. E-mail
transmission cannot be guarranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender (MFarach@richmangreer.commailto:MFarach@richmangreer.com) therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which
arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please request a hard-copy version.
From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Anthony J. Horky
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 10:45 AM
To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee'
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Jurisdiction Question

All:  I think the jurisdiction statute when read in conjunction with Chapter 83 answers Les's question and obviates the need for a statutory amendment.  In my opinion, the summary nature of possession actions still remains, but where the parties are in dispute over amounts exceeding $15,000.00 (or any amount), they have a right to an evidentiary hearing to adjudicate this issue.  The "delay" in proceeding in circuit court seems to exist because of an overloaded court system, not from an ambiguity or other procedural problem with §§ 51.011 or 83.21, Fla. Stat.

Here's my view:

Section 34.11(2), Fla. Stat., states that "[t][he county court shall have exclusive jurisdiction of proceedings relating to the right of possession of real property and to the forcible or unlawful detention of lands and tenants, except that the circuit court has jurisdiction if the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional limits of the county court..."  Emphasis added.

Section 83.232, Fla. Stat. states that "[i]n an action by the landlord which includes a claim for possession of real property"  if the tenant contests the amount alleged in the complaint, or interposes the defense of payment or satisfaction of the rent in the amount alleged in the complaint, the court must make a determination of what rent, if any is due and enter an order that the tenant pay the amount determined by the court as due into the court registry.

I think that § 34.11(2), Fla. Stat. supports Manuel's statement that county courts have jurisdiction over "pure" possession actions, but this implies an action where there is no dispute as to the amount of rent due.  If the tenant disputes the amount of rent due or interposes the defense of payment, this places the amount of rent into the category of the amount in controversy , which will require an evidentiary hearing to resolve.  A plain meaning interpretation of "except that the circuit court has jurisdiction if the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional limits of the county court" means that in possession actions where the tenant disputes the amount of rent due or interposes a defense of payment, the county court cannot enter an order or adjudicate an amount in controversy that exceeds its jurisdictional limit of $15,000.00.

Any alternative arguments will be appreciated.

Thank you.

Anthony J. Horky, Esquire
Anthony J. Horky, P.A.
301 Yamato Road, Suite 1240
Boca Raton, Florida 33431
Telephone: (561) 226-4628
Facsimile: (561) 994-6693
Email:  ajhorky.law@gmail.commailto:ajhorky.law@gmail.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: ajhorky.law@gmail.commailto:ajhorky.law@gmail.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 Arthur J. Menor
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 6:27 PM
To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee'
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Jurisdiction Question

This seems like an issue that might be ripe for a legislative fix.  The rent deposit statute was intended to speed up the process of eviction for non-payment of rent.  It appears that it may be having the opposite effect.

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

Arthur J. Menor
Partner
Shutts & Bowen LLP
1100 CityPlace Tower, 525 Okeechobee Boulevard | West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Direct: (561) 650-8510 | Fax: (561) 822-5510
E-Mailmailto:AMenor@shutts.com | Biographyhttp://www.shutts.com/attorneys-Arthur-Menor.html | V-Cardhttp://www.shutts.com/vcard-132.vcf | Websitehttp://www.shutts.com/

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Anthony J. Horky
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 4:41 PM
To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee'
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Jurisdiction Question
It is true that county court has jurisdiction over the possession count.  However, what if the tenant disputes the amount of rent due and files a motion to determine the amount of rent due?  Does the county court have jurisdiction to adjudicate and enter an order that tenant deposit an amount of money that exceeds its jurisdictional limit?  I'm not so sure on that.

Anthony J. Horky, Esquire
Anthony J. Horky, P.A.
301 Yamato Road, Suite 1240
Boca Raton, Florida 33431
Telephone: (561) 226-4628
Facsimile: (561) 994-6693
Email:  ajhorky.law@gmail.commailto:ajhorky.law@gmail.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: ajhorky.law@gmail.commailto:ajhorky.law@gmail.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 Manuel Farach
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 4:30 PM
To: lesstevens@earthlink.net; RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Cc: 'James Reyer'
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Jurisdiction Question

County court has jurisdiction of "pure" possession actions no matter how much rent is in default. If there were a second count for damages in excess of $15,000, then you could move to transfer to circuit court

[http://www.richmangreer.com/emailsig/logo.gif]
Manuel Farach / Of Counsel - Board Certified in Real Estate Law and Business Litigation by The Florida Bar
Richman Greer P.A.
One Clearlake Centre
Suite 1504
250 Australian Avenue South
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
Office: 561.803.3500
Fax:
Direct:
Email:
www.RichmanGreer.comhttp://www.RichmanGreer.com
[http://www.richmangreer.com/emailsig/meritas.gif]
To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform
you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including
any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for
the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii)
promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter
addressed herein.
This message contains confidential information and is intended for lesstevens@earthlink.netmailto:lesstevens@earthlink.net, landten@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org, jrlaw10@bellsouth.netmailto:jrlaw10@bellsouth.net. If you are not
lesstevens@earthlink.netmailto:lesstevens@earthlink.net, landten@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org, jrlaw10@bellsouth.netmailto:jrlaw10@bellsouth.net you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in
reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. E-mail
transmission cannot be guarranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender (MFarach@richmangreer.commailto:MFarach@richmangreer.com) therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which
arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please request a hard-copy version.
From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of lesstevens
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 4:26 PM
To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee'
Cc: 'James Reyer'
Subject: [RPPTL LandTen] Jurisdiction Question

Stupid Question time:

I have a commercial client who owes rents significantly in excess of the $15k jurisdiction of the County Court. Suit is filed in County Court ONLY for eviction. Can this be sustained, or do I have a basis for moving the Court to transfer the case to the Circuit Court despite there being no demand for money?

Les H. Stevens, Esquire
Les H. Stevens, P.A.
5301 North Federal Highway
Suite 130
Boca Raton, Florida 33487
Tel. - (561) 989-9797
Fax - (561) 989-8484
E-Mail - lesstevens@earthlink.netmailto:lesstevens@earthlink.net

THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHOM IT IS ADDRESSED, AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL AND/OR OTHERWISE EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS TRANSMITTAL IN ERROR, PLEASE DELETE IT AND NOTIFY THIS OFFICE IMMEDIATELY

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 listlandten@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:landten@lists.flabarrpptl.orghttp://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/landten

Residential or nonresidential?

Anthony J. Horky, Esquire

Anthony J. Horky, P.A.

301 Yamato Road, Suite 1240

Boca Raton, Florida 33431

Telephone: (561) 226-4628

Facsimile: (561) 994-6693

Email:  ajhorky.law@gmail.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: ajhorky.law@gmail.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 Beverly Barnett
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 5:05 PM
To: Cary Sabol; RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Jurisdiction Question

I have a Notice of Contest of Amount of Money to be Placed into the Court’s
Registry from the opposing attorney.  It is my understanding from reading
info from members of this committee and the case law that the amount of rent
that is due must be deposited into the Clerk’s Registry before this motion
can be heard.  Otherwise, a default can be entered.  Is this correct?

Beverly R. Barnett, Esq.

Thornton, Torrence & Barnett, P. A.

6709 Ridge Road Suite 106

Port Richey, FL 34668

727-845-6224

The information contained in this transmission is attorney 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 addressee, you are
hereby notified that any dissemination or copying of this communication is
strictly prohibited.  If you have received this communication in error,
please notify us immediately by returning the original message to us.  Thank
you.

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org
[mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Cary Sabol
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 10:05 AM
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Jurisdiction Question

I would also concur with Manny, but a legislative clarification might also
be a good idea to ensure unform application of the issue.

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: Michael Grant michael@rbwarrenlaw.com
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 9:17 AM
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Jurisdiction Question

I concur with Manny and have used that argument successfully numerous times
in Palm Beach, Broward, and Dade County Courts.  So far, only one Broward
County Court Judge disagreed with the argument and insisted on transferring
the case to Circuit Court.

Michael

Michael L. Grant, Esq.

RICHARD B. WARREN, P.A.

1555 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, Suite 1006

West Palm Beach, FL  33401

Telephone: (561) 681-9494 | Facsimile: (561) 681-9436

WWW.RBWARRENLAW.COM

Description: Description: cid:image001.jpg@01CBA5CE.BF828880

The information contained in this e-mail transmission is privileged and
confidential.  If you are not the intended recipient or an 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 e-mail
in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail.  Thank you.

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org
[mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Manuel Farach
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 6:56 PM
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Jurisdiction Question

My argument in the past has been that a “pure” possession action does not
determine how much the tenant owes, it only determines whether there is a
default entitling the landlord to possession and the amount of the default
(whether it is $100 or $100,000) is immaterial. Tenants have, of course,
argued that the amount allegedly in default was in excess of the County
Court’s jurisdiction and the case should therefore be transferred to Circuit
Court. I replied that if the Tenant’s argument was correct, then section
34.011 (2) would say “the County Court has jurisdiction for actions for
possession where the amount in default is within the monetary jurisdiction
of the County Court,” i.e., a repeat of section 1. By pointing that out, the
courts have realized the Tenant’s argument makes no sense.

I can’t say I have had this issue come up a lot of times in my practice
(maybe twice?), but my argument has been successful. I defer, however, to my
colleagues who litigate evictions day in and day out and have more
experience than I do with this issue.

I’ve always thought “amount in controversy” is the issue of money damages,
i.e., how much money you are asking for. Technically speaking, there is no
“amount in controversy” in a “pure” possession action because the landlord
is not asking for money damages. If Landlord files a two-count complaint
(one count asking for money damages), then I think “amount in controversy”
comes into play.

I’m really curious what others think on this issue.

Thanks

Manny

http://www.richmangreer.com/emailsig/logo.gif

Manuel Farach / Of Counsel - Board Certified in Real Estate Law and Business
Litigation by The Florida Bar

Richman Greer P.A.
One Clearlake Centre
Suite 1504
250 Australian Avenue South
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
Office: 561.803.3500
Fax:
Direct:
Email:
www.RichmanGreer.com

http://www.richmangreer.com/emailsig/meritas.gif

To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform
you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication
(including
any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used,
for
the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or
(ii)
promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or
matter
addressed herein.
This message contains confidential information and is intended for
landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org. If you are not
landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org you are notified that disclosing, copying,
distributing or taking any action in
reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. E-mail
transmission cannot be guarranteed to be secure or error-free as information
could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete,
or contain viruses. The sender (MFarach@richmangreer.com) therefore does not
accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this
message, which
arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please
request a hard-copy version.

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org
[mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Anthony J. Horky
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 10:45 AM
To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee'
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Jurisdiction Question

All:  I think the jurisdiction statute when read in conjunction with Chapter
83 answers Les’s question and obviates the need for a statutory amendment.
In my opinion, the summary nature of possession actions still remains, but
where the parties are in dispute over amounts exceeding $15,000.00 (or any
amount), they have a right to an evidentiary hearing to adjudicate this
issue.  The “delay” in proceeding in circuit court seems to exist because of
an overloaded court system, not from an ambiguity or other procedural
problem with §§ 51.011 or 83.21, Fla. Stat.

Here’s my view:

Section 34.11(2), Fla. Stat., states that “[t][he county court shall have
exclusive jurisdiction of proceedings relating to the right of possession of
real property and to the forcible or unlawful detention of lands and
tenants, except that the circuit court has jurisdiction if the amount in
controversy exceeds the jurisdictional limits of the county court…”
Emphasis added.

Section 83.232, Fla. Stat. states that “[i]n an action by the landlord which
includes a claim for possession of real property”  if the tenant contests
the amount alleged in the complaint, or interposes the defense of payment or
satisfaction of the rent in the amount alleged in the complaint, the court
must make a determination of what rent, if any is due and enter an order
that the tenant pay the amount determined by the court as due into the court
registry.

I think that § 34.11(2), Fla. Stat. supports Manuel’s statement that county
courts have jurisdiction over “pure” possession actions, but this implies an
action where there is no dispute as to the amount of rent due.  If the
tenant disputes the amount of rent due or interposes the defense of payment,
this places the amount of rent into the category of the amount in
controversy , which will require an evidentiary hearing to resolve.  A plain
meaning interpretation of “except that the circuit court has jurisdiction if
the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional limits of the county
court” means that in possession actions where the tenant disputes the amount
of rent due or interposes a defense of payment, the county court cannot
enter an order or adjudicate an amount in controversy that exceeds its
jurisdictional limit of $15,000.00.

Any alternative arguments will be appreciated.

Thank you.

Anthony J. Horky, Esquire

Anthony J. Horky, P.A.

301 Yamato Road, Suite 1240

Boca Raton, Florida 33431

Telephone: (561) 226-4628

Facsimile: (561) 994-6693

Email:  ajhorky.law@gmail.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: ajhorky.law@gmail.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 Arthur J. Menor
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 6:27 PM
To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee'
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Jurisdiction Question

This seems like an issue that might be ripe for a legislative fix.  The rent
deposit statute was intended to speed up the process of eviction for
non-payment of rent.  It appears that it may be having the opposite effect.

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

Arthur J. Menor
Partner

Shutts & Bowen LLP
1100 CityPlace Tower, 525 Okeechobee Boulevard | West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Direct: (561) 650-8510 | Fax: (561) 822-5510
mailto:AMenor@shutts.com E-Mail | Biography
http://www.shutts.com/attorneys-Arthur-Menor.html  | V-Card
http://www.shutts.com/vcard-132.vcf  |  http://www.shutts.com/ Website

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org
[mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Anthony J. Horky
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 4:41 PM
To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee'
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Jurisdiction Question

It is true that county court has jurisdiction over the possession count.
However, what if the tenant disputes the amount of rent due and files a
motion to determine the amount of rent due?  Does the county court have
jurisdiction to adjudicate and enter an order that tenant deposit an amount
of money that exceeds its jurisdictional limit?  I’m not so sure on that.

Anthony J. Horky, Esquire

Anthony J. Horky, P.A.

301 Yamato Road, Suite 1240

Boca Raton, Florida 33431

Telephone: (561) 226-4628

Facsimile: (561) 994-6693

Email:  ajhorky.law@gmail.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: ajhorky.law@gmail.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 Manuel Farach
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 4:30 PM
To: lesstevens@earthlink.net; RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Cc: 'James Reyer'
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Jurisdiction Question

County court has jurisdiction of “pure” possession actions no matter how
much rent is in default. If there were a second count for damages in excess
of $15,000, then you could move to transfer to circuit court

http://www.richmangreer.com/emailsig/logo.gif

Manuel Farach / Of Counsel - Board Certified in Real Estate Law and Business
Litigation by The Florida Bar

Richman Greer P.A.
One Clearlake Centre
Suite 1504
250 Australian Avenue South
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
Office: 561.803.3500
Fax:
Direct:
Email:
www.RichmanGreer.com

http://www.richmangreer.com/emailsig/meritas.gif

To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform
you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication
(including
any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used,
for
the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or
(ii)
promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or
matter
addressed herein.
This message contains confidential information and is intended for
lesstevens@earthlink.net, landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org,
jrlaw10@bellsouth.net. If you are not
lesstevens@earthlink.net, landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org,
jrlaw10@bellsouth.net you are notified that disclosing, copying,
distributing or taking any action in
reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. E-mail
transmission cannot be guarranteed to be secure or error-free as information
could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete,
or contain viruses. The sender (MFarach@richmangreer.com) therefore does not
accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this
message, which
arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please
request a hard-copy version.

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org
[mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of lesstevens
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 4:26 PM
To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee'
Cc: 'James Reyer'
Subject: [RPPTL LandTen] Jurisdiction Question

Stupid Question time:

I have a commercial client who owes rents significantly in excess of the
$15k jurisdiction of the County Court. Suit is filed in County Court ONLY
for eviction. Can this be sustained, or do I have a basis for moving the
Court to transfer the case to the Circuit Court despite there being no
demand for money?

Les H. Stevens, Esquire
Les H. Stevens, P.A.
5301 North Federal Highway
Suite 130
Boca Raton, Florida 33487
Tel. - (561) 989-9797
Fax - (561) 989-8484
E-Mail - lesstevens@earthlink.net

THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO
WHOM IT IS ADDRESSED, AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED,
CONFIDENTIAL AND/OR OTHERWISE EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED
THIS TRANSMITTAL IN ERROR, PLEASE DELETE IT AND NOTIFY THIS OFFICE
IMMEDIATELY

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
listlandten@lists.flabarrpptl.orghttp://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/lan
dten

Hi Beverly,
That sounds like a Motion to Determine Amount of Rent, and in my experience, the rent money does not have to be deposited until the judge determines the amount of rent that is due. If there is case law that says the full amount demanded in the complaint must be placed in the Court Registry prior to the motion being heard, I am not aware of it

[http://www.richmangreer.com/emailsig/logo.gif]

Manuel Farach / Of Counsel - Board Certified in Real Estate Law and Business Litigation by The Florida Bar

Richman Greer P.A.
One Clearlake Centre
Suite 1504
250 Australian Avenue South
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
Office: 561.803.3500
Fax: 561.820.1608
Direct: 561.803.3501
Email: MFarach@richmangreer.com
www.RichmanGreer.comhttp://www.RichmanGreer.com

[http://www.richmangreer.com/emailsig/meritas.gif]

To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform
you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including
any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for
the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii)
promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter
addressed herein.

This message contains confidential information and is intended for landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org, sabollawoffice@yahoo.com. If you are not
landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org, sabollawoffice@yahoo.com you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in
reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. E-mail
transmission cannot be guarranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender (MFarach@richmangreer.com) therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which
arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please request a hard-copy version.

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Beverly Barnett
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 5:05 PM
To: Cary Sabol; RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Jurisdiction Question

I have a Notice of Contest of Amount of Money to be Placed into the Court’s Registry from the opposing attorney.  It is my understanding from reading info from members of this committee and the case law that the amount of rent that is due must be deposited into the Clerk’s Registry before this motion can be heard.  Otherwise, a default can be entered.  Is this correct?

Beverly R. Barnett, Esq.

Thornton, Torrence & Barnett, P. A.

6709 Ridge Road Suite 106

Port Richey, FL 34668

727-845-6224

The information contained in this transmission is attorney 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 addressee, you are hereby notified that any dissemination or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by returning the original message to us.  Thank you.

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Cary Sabol
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 10:05 AM
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Jurisdiction Question

I would also concur with Manny, but a legislative clarification might also be a good idea to ensure unform application of the issue.
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: Michael Grant michael@rbwarrenlaw.com
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 9:17 AM
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Jurisdiction Question
I concur with Manny and have used that argument successfully numerous times in Palm Beach, Broward, and Dade County Courts.  So far, only one Broward County Court Judge disagreed with the argument and insisted on transferring the case to Circuit Court.

Michael

Michael L. Grant, Esq.
RICHARD B. WARREN, P.A.
1555 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, Suite 1006
West Palm Beach, FL  33401
Telephone: (561) 681-9494 | Facsimile: (561) 681-9436
WWW.RBWARRENLAW.COMhttp://WWW.RBWARRENLAW.COM

[Description: Description: cid:image001.jpg@01CBA5CE.BF828880]

The information contained in this e-mail transmission is privileged and confidential.  If you are not the intended recipient or an 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 e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail.  Thank you.

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Manuel Farach
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 6:56 PM
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Jurisdiction Question

My argument in the past has been that a “pure” possession action does not determine how much the tenant owes, it only determines whether there is a default entitling the landlord to possession and the amount of the default (whether it is $100 or $100,000) is immaterial. Tenants have, of course, argued that the amount allegedly in default was in excess of the County Court’s jurisdiction and the case should therefore be transferred to Circuit Court. I replied that if the Tenant’s argument was correct, then section 34.011 (2) would say “the County Court has jurisdiction for actions for possession where the amount in default is within the monetary jurisdiction of the County Court,” i.e., a repeat of section 1. By pointing that out, the courts have realized the Tenant’s argument makes no sense.
I can’t say I have had this issue come up a lot of times in my practice (maybe twice?), but my argument has been successful. I defer, however, to my colleagues who litigate evictions day in and day out and have more experience than I do with this issue.
I’ve always thought “amount in controversy” is the issue of money damages, i.e., how much money you are asking for. Technically speaking, there is no “amount in controversy” in a “pure” possession action because the landlord is not asking for money damages. If Landlord files a two-count complaint (one count asking for money damages), then I think “amount in controversy” comes into play.
I’m really curious what others think on this issue.
Thanks
Manny

[http://www.richmangreer.com/emailsig/logo.gif]
Manuel Farach / Of Counsel - Board Certified in Real Estate Law and Business Litigation by The Florida Bar
Richman Greer P.A.
One Clearlake Centre
Suite 1504
250 Australian Avenue South
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
Office: 561.803.3500
Fax:
Direct:
Email:
www.RichmanGreer.comhttp://www.RichmanGreer.com
[http://www.richmangreer.com/emailsig/meritas.gif]
To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform
you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including
any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for
the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii)
promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter
addressed herein.
This message contains confidential information and is intended for landten@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org. If you are not
landten@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in
reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. E-mail
transmission cannot be guarranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender (MFarach@richmangreer.commailto:MFarach@richmangreer.com) therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which
arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please request a hard-copy version.
From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Anthony J. Horky
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 10:45 AM
To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee'
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Jurisdiction Question

All:  I think the jurisdiction statute when read in conjunction with Chapter 83 answers Les’s question and obviates the need for a statutory amendment.  In my opinion, the summary nature of possession actions still remains, but where the parties are in dispute over amounts exceeding $15,000.00 (or any amount), they have a right to an evidentiary hearing to adjudicate this issue.  The “delay” in proceeding in circuit court seems to exist because of an overloaded court system, not from an ambiguity or other procedural problem with §§ 51.011 or 83.21, Fla. Stat.

Here’s my view:

Section 34.11(2), Fla. Stat., states that “[t][he county court shall have exclusive jurisdiction of proceedings relating to the right of possession of real property and to the forcible or unlawful detention of lands and tenants, except that the circuit court has jurisdiction if the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional limits of the county court…”  Emphasis added.

Section 83.232, Fla. Stat. states that “[i]n an action by the landlord which includes a claim for possession of real property”  if the tenant contests the amount alleged in the complaint, or interposes the defense of payment or satisfaction of the rent in the amount alleged in the complaint, the court must make a determination of what rent, if any is due and enter an order that the tenant pay the amount determined by the court as due into the court registry.

I think that § 34.11(2), Fla. Stat. supports Manuel’s statement that county courts have jurisdiction over “pure” possession actions, but this implies an action where there is no dispute as to the amount of rent due.  If the tenant disputes the amount of rent due or interposes the defense of payment, this places the amount of rent into the category of the amount in controversy , which will require an evidentiary hearing to resolve.  A plain meaning interpretation of “except that the circuit court has jurisdiction if the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional limits of the county court” means that in possession actions where the tenant disputes the amount of rent due or interposes a defense of payment, the county court cannot enter an order or adjudicate an amount in controversy that exceeds its jurisdictional limit of $15,000.00.

Any alternative arguments will be appreciated.

Thank you.

Anthony J. Horky, Esquire
Anthony J. Horky, P.A.
301 Yamato Road, Suite 1240
Boca Raton, Florida 33431
Telephone: (561) 226-4628
Facsimile: (561) 994-6693
Email:  ajhorky.law@gmail.commailto:ajhorky.law@gmail.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: ajhorky.law@gmail.commailto:ajhorky.law@gmail.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 Arthur J. Menor
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 6:27 PM
To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee'
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Jurisdiction Question

This seems like an issue that might be ripe for a legislative fix.  The rent deposit statute was intended to speed up the process of eviction for non-payment of rent.  It appears that it may be having the opposite effect.

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

Arthur J. Menor
Partner
Shutts & Bowen LLP
1100 CityPlace Tower, 525 Okeechobee Boulevard | West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Direct: (561) 650-8510 | Fax: (561) 822-5510
E-Mailmailto:AMenor@shutts.com | Biographyhttp://www.shutts.com/attorneys-Arthur-Menor.html | V-Cardhttp://www.shutts.com/vcard-132.vcf | Websitehttp://www.shutts.com/

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Anthony J. Horky
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 4:41 PM
To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee'
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Jurisdiction Question
It is true that county court has jurisdiction over the possession count.  However, what if the tenant disputes the amount of rent due and files a motion to determine the amount of rent due?  Does the county court have jurisdiction to adjudicate and enter an order that tenant deposit an amount of money that exceeds its jurisdictional limit?  I’m not so sure on that.

Anthony J. Horky, Esquire
Anthony J. Horky, P.A.
301 Yamato Road, Suite 1240
Boca Raton, Florida 33431
Telephone: (561) 226-4628
Facsimile: (561) 994-6693
Email:  ajhorky.law@gmail.commailto:ajhorky.law@gmail.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: ajhorky.law@gmail.commailto:ajhorky.law@gmail.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 Manuel Farach
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 4:30 PM
To: lesstevens@earthlink.net; RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Cc: 'James Reyer'
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Jurisdiction Question

County court has jurisdiction of “pure” possession actions no matter how much rent is in default. If there were a second count for damages in excess of $15,000, then you could move to transfer to circuit court

[http://www.richmangreer.com/emailsig/logo.gif]
Manuel Farach / Of Counsel - Board Certified in Real Estate Law and Business Litigation by The Florida Bar
Richman Greer P.A.
One Clearlake Centre
Suite 1504
250 Australian Avenue South
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
Office: 561.803.3500
Fax:
Direct:
Email:
www.RichmanGreer.comhttp://www.RichmanGreer.com
[http://www.richmangreer.com/emailsig/meritas.gif]
To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform
you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including
any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for
the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii)
promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter
addressed herein.
This message contains confidential information and is intended for lesstevens@earthlink.netmailto:lesstevens@earthlink.net, landten@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org, jrlaw10@bellsouth.netmailto:jrlaw10@bellsouth.net. If you are not
lesstevens@earthlink.netmailto:lesstevens@earthlink.net, landten@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org, jrlaw10@bellsouth.netmailto:jrlaw10@bellsouth.net you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in
reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. E-mail
transmission cannot be guarranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender (MFarach@richmangreer.commailto:MFarach@richmangreer.com) therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which
arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please request a hard-copy version.
From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of lesstevens
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 4:26 PM
To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee'
Cc: 'James Reyer'
Subject: [RPPTL LandTen] Jurisdiction Question

Stupid Question time:

I have a commercial client who owes rents significantly in excess of the $15k jurisdiction of the County Court. Suit is filed in County Court ONLY for eviction. Can this be sustained, or do I have a basis for moving the Court to transfer the case to the Circuit Court despite there being no demand for money?

Les H. Stevens, Esquire
Les H. Stevens, P.A.
5301 North Federal Highway
Suite 130
Boca Raton, Florida 33487
Tel. - (561) 989-9797
Fax - (561) 989-8484
E-Mail - lesstevens@earthlink.netmailto:lesstevens@earthlink.net

THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHOM IT IS ADDRESSED, AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL AND/OR OTHERWISE EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS TRANSMITTAL IN ERROR, PLEASE DELETE IT AND NOTIFY THIS OFFICE IMMEDIATELY

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 listlandten@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:landten@lists.flabarrpptl.orghttp://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/landten

Commercial

Beverly R. Barnett, Esq.

Thornton, Torrence & Barnett, P. A.

6709 Ridge Road Suite 106

Port Richey, FL 34668

727-845-6224

The information contained in this transmission is attorney 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 addressee, you are hereby notified that any dissemination or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by returning the original message to us.  Thank you.

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Anthony J. Horky
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 5:09 PM
To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee'
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Jurisdiction Question

Residential or nonresidential?

Anthony J. Horky, Esquire
Anthony J. Horky, P.A.
301 Yamato Road, Suite 1240
Boca Raton, Florida 33431
Telephone: (561) 226-4628
Facsimile: (561) 994-6693
Email:  ajhorky.law@gmail.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: ajhorky.law@gmail.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 Beverly Barnett
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 5:05 PM
To: Cary Sabol; RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Jurisdiction Question

I have a Notice of Contest of Amount of Money to be Placed into the Court's Registry from the opposing attorney.  It is my understanding from reading info from members of this committee and the case law that the amount of rent that is due must be deposited into the Clerk's Registry before this motion can be heard.  Otherwise, a default can be entered.  Is this correct?

Beverly R. Barnett, Esq.

Thornton, Torrence & Barnett, P. A.

6709 Ridge Road Suite 106

Port Richey, FL 34668

727-845-6224

The information contained in this transmission is attorney 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 addressee, you are hereby notified that any dissemination or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by returning the original message to us.  Thank you.

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Cary Sabol
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 10:05 AM
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Jurisdiction Question

I would also concur with Manny, but a legislative clarification might also be a good idea to ensure unform application of the issue.
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: Michael Grant michael@rbwarrenlaw.com
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 9:17 AM
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Jurisdiction Question
I concur with Manny and have used that argument successfully numerous times in Palm Beach, Broward, and Dade County Courts.  So far, only one Broward County Court Judge disagreed with the argument and insisted on transferring the case to Circuit Court.

Michael

Michael L. Grant, Esq.
RICHARD B. WARREN, P.A.
1555 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, Suite 1006
West Palm Beach, FL  33401
Telephone: (561) 681-9494 | Facsimile: (561) 681-9436
WWW.RBWARRENLAW.COMhttp://WWW.RBWARRENLAW.COM

[cid:image001.jpg@01CC7ECB.5BE2C1B0]

The information contained in this e-mail transmission is privileged and confidential.  If you are not the intended recipient or an 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 e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail.  Thank you.

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Manuel Farach
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 6:56 PM
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Jurisdiction Question

My argument in the past has been that a "pure" possession action does not determine how much the tenant owes, it only determines whether there is a default entitling the landlord to possession and the amount of the default (whether it is $100 or $100,000) is immaterial. Tenants have, of course, argued that the amount allegedly in default was in excess of the County Court's jurisdiction and the case should therefore be transferred to Circuit Court. I replied that if the Tenant's argument was correct, then section 34.011 (2) would say "the County Court has jurisdiction for actions for possession where the amount in default is within the monetary jurisdiction of the County Court," i.e., a repeat of section 1. By pointing that out, the courts have realized the Tenant's argument makes no sense.
I can't say I have had this issue come up a lot of times in my practice (maybe twice?), but my argument has been successful. I defer, however, to my colleagues who litigate evictions day in and day out and have more experience than I do with this issue.
I've always thought "amount in controversy" is the issue of money damages, i.e., how much money you are asking for. Technically speaking, there is no "amount in controversy" in a "pure" possession action because the landlord is not asking for money damages. If Landlord files a two-count complaint (one count asking for money damages), then I think "amount in controversy" comes into play.
I'm really curious what others think on this issue.
Thanks
Manny

[http://www.richmangreer.com/emailsig/logo.gif]
Manuel Farach / Of Counsel - Board Certified in Real Estate Law and Business Litigation by The Florida Bar
Richman Greer P.A.
One Clearlake Centre
Suite 1504
250 Australian Avenue South
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
Office: 561.803.3500
Fax:
Direct:
Email:
www.RichmanGreer.comhttp://www.RichmanGreer.com
[http://www.richmangreer.com/emailsig/meritas.gif]
To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform
you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including
any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for
the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii)
promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter
addressed herein.
This message contains confidential information and is intended for landten@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org. If you are not
landten@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in
reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. E-mail
transmission cannot be guarranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender (MFarach@richmangreer.commailto:MFarach@richmangreer.com) therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which
arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please request a hard-copy version.
From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Anthony J. Horky
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 10:45 AM
To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee'
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Jurisdiction Question

All:  I think the jurisdiction statute when read in conjunction with Chapter 83 answers Les's question and obviates the need for a statutory amendment.  In my opinion, the summary nature of possession actions still remains, but where the parties are in dispute over amounts exceeding $15,000.00 (or any amount), they have a right to an evidentiary hearing to adjudicate this issue.  The "delay" in proceeding in circuit court seems to exist because of an overloaded court system, not from an ambiguity or other procedural problem with §§ 51.011 or 83.21, Fla. Stat.

Here's my view:

Section 34.11(2), Fla. Stat., states that "[t][he county court shall have exclusive jurisdiction of proceedings relating to the right of possession of real property and to the forcible or unlawful detention of lands and tenants, except that the circuit court has jurisdiction if the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional limits of the county court..."  Emphasis added.

Section 83.232, Fla. Stat. states that "[i]n an action by the landlord which includes a claim for possession of real property"  if the tenant contests the amount alleged in the complaint, or interposes the defense of payment or satisfaction of the rent in the amount alleged in the complaint, the court must make a determination of what rent, if any is due and enter an order that the tenant pay the amount determined by the court as due into the court registry.

I think that § 34.11(2), Fla. Stat. supports Manuel's statement that county courts have jurisdiction over "pure" possession actions, but this implies an action where there is no dispute as to the amount of rent due.  If the tenant disputes the amount of rent due or interposes the defense of payment, this places the amount of rent into the category of the amount in controversy , which will require an evidentiary hearing to resolve.  A plain meaning interpretation of "except that the circuit court has jurisdiction if the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional limits of the county court" means that in possession actions where the tenant disputes the amount of rent due or interposes a defense of payment, the county court cannot enter an order or adjudicate an amount in controversy that exceeds its jurisdictional limit of $15,000.00.

Any alternative arguments will be appreciated.

Thank you.

Anthony J. Horky, Esquire
Anthony J. Horky, P.A.
301 Yamato Road, Suite 1240
Boca Raton, Florida 33431
Telephone: (561) 226-4628
Facsimile: (561) 994-6693
Email:  ajhorky.law@gmail.commailto:ajhorky.law@gmail.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: ajhorky.law@gmail.commailto:ajhorky.law@gmail.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 Arthur J. Menor
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 6:27 PM
To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee'
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Jurisdiction Question

This seems like an issue that might be ripe for a legislative fix.  The rent deposit statute was intended to speed up the process of eviction for non-payment of rent.  It appears that it may be having the opposite effect.

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

Arthur J. Menor
Partner
Shutts & Bowen LLP
1100 CityPlace Tower, 525 Okeechobee Boulevard | West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Direct: (561) 650-8510 | Fax: (561) 822-5510
E-Mailmailto:AMenor@shutts.com | Biographyhttp://www.shutts.com/attorneys-Arthur-Menor.html | V-Cardhttp://www.shutts.com/vcard-132.vcf | Websitehttp://www.shutts.com/

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Anthony J. Horky
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 4:41 PM
To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee'
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Jurisdiction Question
It is true that county court has jurisdiction over the possession count.  However, what if the tenant disputes the amount of rent due and files a motion to determine the amount of rent due?  Does the county court have jurisdiction to adjudicate and enter an order that tenant deposit an amount of money that exceeds its jurisdictional limit?  I'm not so sure on that.

Anthony J. Horky, Esquire
Anthony J. Horky, P.A.
301 Yamato Road, Suite 1240
Boca Raton, Florida 33431
Telephone: (561) 226-4628
Facsimile: (561) 994-6693
Email:  ajhorky.law@gmail.commailto:ajhorky.law@gmail.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: ajhorky.law@gmail.commailto:ajhorky.law@gmail.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 Manuel Farach
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 4:30 PM
To: lesstevens@earthlink.net; RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Cc: 'James Reyer'
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Jurisdiction Question

County court has jurisdiction of "pure" possession actions no matter how much rent is in default. If there were a second count for damages in excess of $15,000, then you could move to transfer to circuit court

[http://www.richmangreer.com/emailsig/logo.gif]
Manuel Farach / Of Counsel - Board Certified in Real Estate Law and Business Litigation by The Florida Bar
Richman Greer P.A.
One Clearlake Centre
Suite 1504
250 Australian Avenue South
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
Office: 561.803.3500
Fax:
Direct:
Email:
www.RichmanGreer.comhttp://www.RichmanGreer.com
[http://www.richmangreer.com/emailsig/meritas.gif]
To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform
you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including
any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for
the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii)
promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter
addressed herein.
This message contains confidential information and is intended for lesstevens@earthlink.netmailto:lesstevens@earthlink.net, landten@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org, jrlaw10@bellsouth.netmailto:jrlaw10@bellsouth.net. If you are not
lesstevens@earthlink.netmailto:lesstevens@earthlink.net, landten@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org, jrlaw10@bellsouth.netmailto:jrlaw10@bellsouth.net you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in
reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. E-mail
transmission cannot be guarranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender (MFarach@richmangreer.commailto:MFarach@richmangreer.com) therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which
arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please request a hard-copy version.
From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of lesstevens
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 4:26 PM
To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee'
Cc: 'James Reyer'
Subject: [RPPTL LandTen] Jurisdiction Question

Stupid Question time:

I have a commercial client who owes rents significantly in excess of the $15k jurisdiction of the County Court. Suit is filed in County Court ONLY for eviction. Can this be sustained, or do I have a basis for moving the Court to transfer the case to the Circuit Court despite there being no demand for money?

Les H. Stevens, Esquire
Les H. Stevens, P.A.
5301 North Federal Highway
Suite 130
Boca Raton, Florida 33487
Tel. - (561) 989-9797
Fax - (561) 989-8484
E-Mail - lesstevens@earthlink.netmailto:lesstevens@earthlink.net

THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHOM IT IS ADDRESSED, AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL AND/OR OTHERWISE EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS TRANSMITTAL IN ERROR, PLEASE DELETE IT AND NOTIFY THIS OFFICE IMMEDIATELY

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 listlandten@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:landten@lists.flabarrpptl.orghttp://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/landten