Hello Members.  I'd appreciate your opinions on the following scenario.

Landlord files action for removal of a tenant (residential).  The 3-day
notice attached to the complaint is defective because it includes several
charges (all of them itemized on the notice) not defined in the lease as
rent.  After tenant files motion to dismiss, motion to determine rent, and
answers, the court holds a rent determination hearing wherein the tenant is
ordered to pay a sum certain into the register.  Tenant does so.  Next,
landlord's attorney files a motion to amend the complaint and to amend the
three day notice. Landlord does not serve the amended notice.  Instead, the
proposed Amended Complaint is identical to the original complaint accept:
(a) it no longer alleges items not defined in the lease as rent; and (b)
the 3-day notice attached to it is the amended (corrected) notice.
Moreover, the Amended Complaint still alleges that the 3-day notice
(amended) was served on ___ date-the same date as alleged in the original
complaint!  In other words, the landlord is alleging that the amended
notice was the one originally served.

I've got several problems with that.

Section 83.60(1)(a) says that the "landlord must be given the opportunity to
cure a deficiency in a notice or pleading before dismissal of the action."

QUESTIONS:

1.    Does 83.60(1)(a) allow a landlord, in the middle of a lawsuit, to
   

change the amount due in the 3-day notice and proceed to prosecute the
eviction?  In my case, the original notice was for double what was actually
due-hence the tenant did not pay it.  Now, the corrected notice is for the
correct amount, which has already been paid into the registry.

2.   If the 3-day notice is a condition precedent to the right to bring
   

a removal action, what are the mechanics for allowing landlord to "cure" a
deficient notice before dismissal?  How can the case be allowed to proceed?

3.     Is the landlord permitted to falsely allege that the notice
   

(amended notice attached to the complaint) has already been served on the
date the deficient notice was served?

Thank you for your time and opinions.

Regards,

AJH Logo mark

Anthony J. Horky, Esquire

Anthony J. Horky, P.A.

2255 Glades Road, Suite 324A

Boca Raton, Florida 33431

T: 561.989.3206

F: 561.952.0096

http://www.horkylaw.com www.horkylaw.com

This message and the documents attached to it, if any, are intended only for
the use of the addressee and may contain information that is attorney-client
privileged or confidential, and/or may contain attorney work product.  If
you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this communication in error, please delete all electronic copies of
this message and its attachments, if any, destroy any hard copies you may
have created and notify me immediately at:  mailto:ahorky@horkylaw.com
ahorky@horkylaw.com.

Tax Advice Disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the
IRS under Circular 230, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice
contained in this communication (including any attachments), unless
otherwise specifically stated, was not intended or written to be used, and
cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal
Revenue Code or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party
any matters addressed herein.

Anthony,

I have some of the same questions you have about that change to the statute, and it scares the heck out of me as a tenant attorney as I believe it could be interpreted that way. I can answer at least a few items there. First, I believe there is case law out there that holds a three day notice is not considered a condition precedent. I operate out of the 4th DCA and I am pretty sure it was from that court. I will try to find it.

Second, in the limited times I have actually argued this, I would argue the landlord must at least substantially comply with the three day notice requirement. As in, if the landlord is 100 dollars off and the tenant owes 5000, that is one thing, but if in your case, the landlord doubled the amount owed, I would argue that such a deficiency should not be curable by a simple amendment and requires a new three day notice to be served. In other words, I encourage the judge the read the statute as defining deficiency as incidental or relatively minor, but for major items, would require a new notice. To be honest, this is just trying to give a judge an opening to make a ruling in a tenant's favor, and if you get a judge who just thinks your client should be out, they can probably use that part of the statute to do it. It was a non-sense change to the statute that could be a death knell for tenants in the hands of a landlord friendly judge. I routinely caution clients about this and that different judges could provide very different outcomes before they put money into the registry.

If anyone has anything that can be used to combat this from the DCA level, it would be greatly appreciated, though I know this is largely a landlord rep list serv.

James Zink, Esq.
Florida Rural Legal Services, Inc.
3111 South Dixie Highway, Suite 140
West Palm Beach, FL 33405
Phone: (561) 820-8902 x. 6025
Fax: (561) 820-8892

The information contained in this e-mail, including any attachment(s), is intended solely for use by the named addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, or a person designated as responsible for delivering such messages to the intended recipient, you are not authorized to disclose, copy, distribute or retain this message, in whole or in part, without written authorization from the sender.  If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Anthony J. Horky
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2014 4:12 PM
To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee'
Subject: [RPPTL LandTen] Cure defective notice during pendency of case?

Hello Members.  I'd appreciate your opinions on the following scenario.

Landlord files action for removal of a tenant (residential).  The 3-day notice attached to the complaint is defective because it includes several charges (all of them itemized on the notice) not defined in the lease as rent.  After tenant files motion to dismiss, motion to determine rent, and answers, the court holds a rent determination hearing wherein the tenant is ordered to pay a sum certain into the register.  Tenant does so.  Next, landlord's attorney files a motion to amend the complaint and to amend the three day notice. Landlord does not serve the amended notice.  Instead, the proposed Amended Complaint is identical to the original complaint accept: (a) it no longer alleges items not defined in the lease as rent; and (b)  the 3-day notice attached to it is the amended (corrected) notice.  Moreover, the Amended Complaint still alleges that the 3-day notice (amended) was served on ___ date-the same date as alleged in the original complaint!  In other words, the landlord is alleging that the amended notice was the one originally served.

I've got several problems with that.

Section 83.60(1)(a) says that the "landlord must be given the opportunity to cure a deficiency in a notice or pleading before dismissal of the action."

QUESTIONS:

1.    Does 83.60(1)(a) allow a landlord, in the middle of a lawsuit, to change the amount due in the 3-day notice and proceed to prosecute the eviction?  In my case, the original notice was for double what was actually due-hence the tenant did not pay it.  Now, the corrected notice is for the correct amount, which has already been paid into the registry.
   

2.   If the 3-day notice is a condition precedent to the right to bring a removal action, what are the mechanics for allowing landlord to "cure" a deficient notice before dismissal?  How can the case be allowed to proceed?
   

3.     Is the landlord permitted to falsely allege that the notice (amended notice attached to the complaint) has already been served on the date the deficient notice was served?
   

Thank you for your time and opinions.

Regards,

[cid:image003.png@01CFC85C.7B8C4350]

Anthony J. Horky, Esquire

Anthony J. Horky, P.A.

2255 Glades Road, Suite 324A

Boca Raton, Florida 33431

T: 561.989.3206

F: 561.952.0096

www.horkylaw.comhttp://www.horkylaw.com

This message and the documents attached to it, if any, are intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is attorney-client privileged or confidential, and/or may contain attorney work product.  If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please delete all electronic copies of this message and its attachments, if any, destroy any hard copies you may have created and notify me immediately at: ahorky@horkylaw.commailto:ahorky@horkylaw.com.

Tax Advice Disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS under Circular 230, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments), unless otherwise specifically stated, was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any matters addressed herein.

This is an example of a messy, confusing statutory change where the Bar sat
back and did not get involved. Again.

Harry

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

THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE IS CONFIDENTIAL, ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGED, AND
INTENDED FOR THE PERSONS NAMED ABOVE ONLY.  ALL OTHER USE, COPYING, OR
DISTRIBUTION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org
[mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of James Zink
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2014 4:23 PM
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Cure defective notice during pendency of case?

Anthony,

I have some of the same questions you have about that change to the statute,
and it scares the heck out of me as a tenant attorney as I believe it could
be interpreted that way. I can answer at least a few items there. First, I
believe there is case law out there that holds a three day notice is not
considered a condition precedent. I operate out of the 4th DCA and I am
pretty sure it was from that court. I will try to find it.

Second, in the limited times I have actually argued this, I would argue the
landlord must at least substantially comply with the three day notice
requirement. As in, if the landlord is 100 dollars off and the tenant owes
5000, that is one thing, but if in your case, the landlord doubled the
amount owed, I would argue that such a deficiency should not be curable by a
simple amendment and requires a new three day notice to be served. In other
words, I encourage the judge the read the statute as defining deficiency as
incidental or relatively minor, but for major items, would require a new
notice. To be honest, this is just trying to give a judge an opening to make
a ruling in a tenant's favor, and if you get a judge who just thinks your
client should be out, they can probably use that part of the statute to do
it. It was a non-sense change to the statute that could be a death knell for
tenants in the hands of a landlord friendly judge. I routinely caution
clients about this and that different judges could provide very different
outcomes before they put money into the registry.

If anyone has anything that can be used to combat this from the DCA level,
it would be greatly appreciated, though I know this is largely a landlord
rep list serv.

James Zink, Esq.

Florida Rural Legal Services, Inc.

3111 South Dixie Highway, Suite 140

West Palm Beach, FL 33405

Phone: (561) 820-8902 x. 6025

Fax: (561) 820-8892

The information contained in this e-mail, including any attachment(s), is
intended solely for use by the named addressee(s). If you are not the
intended recipient, or a person designated as responsible for delivering
such messages to the intended recipient, you are not authorized to disclose,
copy, distribute or retain this message, in whole or in part, without
written authorization from the sender.  If you have received this message in
error, please notify the sender immediately

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org
[mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Anthony J. Horky
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2014 4:12 PM
To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee'
Subject: [RPPTL LandTen] Cure defective notice during pendency of case?

Hello Members.  I'd appreciate your opinions on the following scenario.

Landlord files action for removal of a tenant (residential).  The 3-day
notice attached to the complaint is defective because it includes several
charges (all of them itemized on the notice) not defined in the lease as
rent.  After tenant files motion to dismiss, motion to determine rent, and
answers, the court holds a rent determination hearing wherein the tenant is
ordered to pay a sum certain into the register.  Tenant does so.  Next,
landlord's attorney files a motion to amend the complaint and to amend the
three day notice. Landlord does not serve the amended notice.  Instead, the
proposed Amended Complaint is identical to the original complaint accept:
(a) it no longer alleges items not defined in the lease as rent; and (b)
the 3-day notice attached to it is the amended (corrected) notice.
Moreover, the Amended Complaint still alleges that the 3-day notice
(amended) was served on ___ date-the same date as alleged in the original
complaint!  In other words, the landlord is alleging that the amended
notice was the one originally served.

I've got several problems with that.

Section 83.60(1)(a) says that the "landlord must be given the opportunity to
cure a deficiency in a notice or pleading before dismissal of the action."

QUESTIONS:

1.    Does 83.60(1)(a) allow a landlord, in the middle of a lawsuit, to
   

change the amount due in the 3-day notice and proceed to prosecute the
eviction?  In my case, the original notice was for double what was actually
due-hence the tenant did not pay it.  Now, the corrected notice is for the
correct amount, which has already been paid into the registry.

2.   If the 3-day notice is a condition precedent to the right to bring
   

a removal action, what are the mechanics for allowing landlord to "cure" a
deficient notice before dismissal?  How can the case be allowed to proceed?

3.     Is the landlord permitted to falsely allege that the notice
   

(amended notice attached to the complaint) has already been served on the
date the deficient notice was served?

Thank you for your time and opinions.

Regards,

AJH Logo mark

Anthony J. Horky, Esquire

Anthony J. Horky, P.A.

2255 Glades Road, Suite 324A

Boca Raton, Florida 33431

T: 561.989.3206

F: 561.952.0096

www.horkylaw.com

This message and the documents attached to it, if any, are intended only for
the use of the addressee and may contain information that is attorney-client
privileged or confidential, and/or may contain attorney work product.  If
you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this communication in error, please delete all electronic copies of
this message and its attachments, if any, destroy any hard copies you may
have created and notify me immediately at:  mailto:ahorky@horkylaw.com
ahorky@horkylaw.com.

Tax Advice Disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the
IRS under Circular 230, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice
contained in this communication (including any attachments), unless
otherwise specifically stated, was not intended or written to be used, and
cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal
Revenue Code or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party
any matters addressed herein.

The case is Stanley v. Quest. It held that even if no three day notice was alleged to have been issued, if there is an agreed upon amount owed into the registry, or if the court finds a certain amount is due, that money must be deposited or a default and judgment is entered. Hence, a three day notice is not a condition precedent in that an eviction can be completed, as in you cannot argue that failure to provide it would necessitate the dismissal of the case regardless of any other factors like money owed. In combination with the statutory change, it certainly could be argued that a defective notice is no longer an applicable defense in evictions.

One question Anthony. Did your client attempt to pay what he believed to be the correct amount due? I have also had clients do that when I have caught them early enough. That would give rise to a different defense, that being refusal of rent, instead of a notice issue. Most times I do not catch them early enough, but may apply in your case.

James Zink, Esq.
Florida Rural Legal Services, Inc.
3111 South Dixie Highway, Suite 140
West Palm Beach, FL 33405
Phone: (561) 820-8902 x. 6025
Fax: (561) 820-8892

The information contained in this e-mail, including any attachment(s), is intended solely for use by the named addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, or a person designated as responsible for delivering such messages to the intended recipient, you are not authorized to disclose, copy, distribute or retain this message, in whole or in part, without written authorization from the sender.  If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Harry Heist
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2014 4:31 PM
To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee'
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Cure defective notice during pendency of case?

This is an example of a messy, confusing statutory change where the Bar sat back and did not get involved. Again.

Harry

LAW OFFICES OF
HEIST, WEISSE, & WOLK P.A.
PH: 1 800 253 8428
FAX: 1 800 367 9038
"Serving the Property Management Professional"
Website:  www.evict.comhttp://www.evict.com/
Email: harry@evict.commailto:harry@evict.com
THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE IS CONFIDENTIAL, ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGED, AND INTENDED FOR THE PERSONS NAMED ABOVE ONLY.  ALL OTHER USE, COPYING, OR DISTRIBUTION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of James Zink
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2014 4:23 PM
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Cure defective notice during pendency of case?

Anthony,

I have some of the same questions you have about that change to the statute, and it scares the heck out of me as a tenant attorney as I believe it could be interpreted that way. I can answer at least a few items there. First, I believe there is case law out there that holds a three day notice is not considered a condition precedent. I operate out of the 4th DCA and I am pretty sure it was from that court. I will try to find it.

Second, in the limited times I have actually argued this, I would argue the landlord must at least substantially comply with the three day notice requirement. As in, if the landlord is 100 dollars off and the tenant owes 5000, that is one thing, but if in your case, the landlord doubled the amount owed, I would argue that such a deficiency should not be curable by a simple amendment and requires a new three day notice to be served. In other words, I encourage the judge the read the statute as defining deficiency as incidental or relatively minor, but for major items, would require a new notice. To be honest, this is just trying to give a judge an opening to make a ruling in a tenant's favor, and if you get a judge who just thinks your client should be out, they can probably use that part of the statute to do it. It was a non-sense change to the statute that could be a death knell for tenants in the hands of a landlord friendly judge. I routinely caution clients about this and that different judges could provide very different outcomes before they put money into the registry.

If anyone has anything that can be used to combat this from the DCA level, it would be greatly appreciated, though I know this is largely a landlord rep list serv.

James Zink, Esq.
Florida Rural Legal Services, Inc.
3111 South Dixie Highway, Suite 140
West Palm Beach, FL 33405
Phone: (561) 820-8902 x. 6025
Fax: (561) 820-8892

The information contained in this e-mail, including any attachment(s), is intended solely for use by the named addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, or a person designated as responsible for delivering such messages to the intended recipient, you are not authorized to disclose, copy, distribute or retain this message, in whole or in part, without written authorization from the sender.  If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Anthony J. Horky
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2014 4:12 PM
To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee'
Subject: [RPPTL LandTen] Cure defective notice during pendency of case?

Hello Members.  I'd appreciate your opinions on the following scenario.

Landlord files action for removal of a tenant (residential).  The 3-day notice attached to the complaint is defective because it includes several charges (all of them itemized on the notice) not defined in the lease as rent.  After tenant files motion to dismiss, motion to determine rent, and answers, the court holds a rent determination hearing wherein the tenant is ordered to pay a sum certain into the register.  Tenant does so.  Next, landlord's attorney files a motion to amend the complaint and to amend the three day notice. Landlord does not serve the amended notice.  Instead, the proposed Amended Complaint is identical to the original complaint accept: (a) it no longer alleges items not defined in the lease as rent; and (b)  the 3-day notice attached to it is the amended (corrected) notice.  Moreover, the Amended Complaint still alleges that the 3-day notice (amended) was served on ___ date-the same date as alleged in the original complaint!  In other words, the landlord is alleging that the amended notice was the one originally served.

I've got several problems with that.

Section 83.60(1)(a) says that the "landlord must be given the opportunity to cure a deficiency in a notice or pleading before dismissal of the action."

QUESTIONS:

1.    Does 83.60(1)(a) allow a landlord, in the middle of a lawsuit, to change the amount due in the 3-day notice and proceed to prosecute the eviction?  In my case, the original notice was for double what was actually due-hence the tenant did not pay it.  Now, the corrected notice is for the correct amount, which has already been paid into the registry.
   

2.   If the 3-day notice is a condition precedent to the right to bring a removal action, what are the mechanics for allowing landlord to "cure" a deficient notice before dismissal?  How can the case be allowed to proceed?
   

3.     Is the landlord permitted to falsely allege that the notice (amended notice attached to the complaint) has already been served on the date the deficient notice was served?
   

Thank you for your time and opinions.

Regards,

[cid:image003.png@01CFC85E.F0960BC0]

Anthony J. Horky, Esquire
Anthony J. Horky, P.A.
2255 Glades Road, Suite 324A
Boca Raton, Florida 33431
T: 561.989.3206
F: 561.952.0096
www.horkylaw.comhttp://www.horkylaw.com

This message and the documents attached to it, if any, are intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is attorney-client privileged or confidential, and/or may contain attorney work product.  If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please delete all electronic copies of this message and its attachments, if any, destroy any hard copies you may have created and notify me immediately at: ahorky@horkylaw.commailto:ahorky@horkylaw.com.

Tax Advice Disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS under Circular 230, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments), unless otherwise specifically stated, was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any matters addressed herein.

Anthony, please see footnote 1 in the attached case, it is of some help.

Jay A. Taplin
Florida Bar Board Certified Real Estate Law
Taplin & Associates
Suite 1510, Regions Bank Tower
1555 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
(561) 684-8399 (ph)
(561) 471-8055 (fax)
jtaplin@taplinlaw.netmailto:jtaplin@taplinlaw.net

This email is intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise exempt from dislosure under applicable law.  If the reader of this email is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by telephone and return the original message to us at the listed email address.  Thank you.

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Harry Heist
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2014 4:31 PM
To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee'
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Cure defective notice during pendency of case?

This is an example of a messy, confusing statutory change where the Bar sat back and did not get involved. Again.

Harry

LAW OFFICES OF
HEIST, WEISSE, & WOLK P.A.
PH: 1 800 253 8428
FAX: 1 800 367 9038
"Serving the Property Management Professional"
Website:  www.evict.comhttp://www.evict.com/
Email: harry@evict.commailto:harry@evict.com
THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE IS CONFIDENTIAL, ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGED, AND INTENDED FOR THE PERSONS NAMED ABOVE ONLY.  ALL OTHER USE, COPYING, OR DISTRIBUTION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of James Zink
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2014 4:23 PM
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Cure defective notice during pendency of case?

Anthony,

I have some of the same questions you have about that change to the statute, and it scares the heck out of me as a tenant attorney as I believe it could be interpreted that way. I can answer at least a few items there. First, I believe there is case law out there that holds a three day notice is not considered a condition precedent. I operate out of the 4th DCA and I am pretty sure it was from that court. I will try to find it.

Second, in the limited times I have actually argued this, I would argue the landlord must at least substantially comply with the three day notice requirement. As in, if the landlord is 100 dollars off and the tenant owes 5000, that is one thing, but if in your case, the landlord doubled the amount owed, I would argue that such a deficiency should not be curable by a simple amendment and requires a new three day notice to be served. In other words, I encourage the judge the read the statute as defining deficiency as incidental or relatively minor, but for major items, would require a new notice. To be honest, this is just trying to give a judge an opening to make a ruling in a tenant's favor, and if you get a judge who just thinks your client should be out, they can probably use that part of the statute to do it. It was a non-sense change to the statute that could be a death knell for tenants in the hands of a landlord friendly judge. I routinely caution clients about this and that different judges could provide very different outcomes before they put money into the registry.

If anyone has anything that can be used to combat this from the DCA level, it would be greatly appreciated, though I know this is largely a landlord rep list serv.

James Zink, Esq.
Florida Rural Legal Services, Inc.
3111 South Dixie Highway, Suite 140
West Palm Beach, FL 33405
Phone: (561) 820-8902 x. 6025
Fax: (561) 820-8892

The information contained in this e-mail, including any attachment(s), is intended solely for use by the named addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, or a person designated as responsible for delivering such messages to the intended recipient, you are not authorized to disclose, copy, distribute or retain this message, in whole or in part, without written authorization from the sender.  If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Anthony J. Horky
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2014 4:12 PM
To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee'
Subject: [RPPTL LandTen] Cure defective notice during pendency of case?

Hello Members.  I'd appreciate your opinions on the following scenario.

Landlord files action for removal of a tenant (residential).  The 3-day notice attached to the complaint is defective because it includes several charges (all of them itemized on the notice) not defined in the lease as rent.  After tenant files motion to dismiss, motion to determine rent, and answers, the court holds a rent determination hearing wherein the tenant is ordered to pay a sum certain into the register.  Tenant does so.  Next, landlord's attorney files a motion to amend the complaint and to amend the three day notice. Landlord does not serve the amended notice.  Instead, the proposed Amended Complaint is identical to the original complaint accept: (a) it no longer alleges items not defined in the lease as rent; and (b)  the 3-day notice attached to it is the amended (corrected) notice.  Moreover, the Amended Complaint still alleges that the 3-day notice (amended) was served on ___ date-the same date as alleged in the original complaint!  In other words, the landlord is alleging that the amended notice was the one originally served.

I've got several problems with that.

Section 83.60(1)(a) says that the "landlord must be given the opportunity to cure a deficiency in a notice or pleading before dismissal of the action."

QUESTIONS:

1.    Does 83.60(1)(a) allow a landlord, in the middle of a lawsuit, to change the amount due in the 3-day notice and proceed to prosecute the eviction?  In my case, the original notice was for double what was actually due-hence the tenant did not pay it.  Now, the corrected notice is for the correct amount, which has already been paid into the registry.
   

2.   If the 3-day notice is a condition precedent to the right to bring a removal action, what are the mechanics for allowing landlord to "cure" a deficient notice before dismissal?  How can the case be allowed to proceed?
   

3.     Is the landlord permitted to falsely allege that the notice (amended notice attached to the complaint) has already been served on the date the deficient notice was served?
   

Thank you for your time and opinions.

Regards,

[AJH Logo mark]

Anthony J. Horky, Esquire
Anthony J. Horky, P.A.
2255 Glades Road, Suite 324A
Boca Raton, Florida 33431
T: 561.989.3206
F: 561.952.0096
www.horkylaw.comhttp://www.horkylaw.com

This message and the documents attached to it, if any, are intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is attorney-client privileged or confidential, and/or may contain attorney work product.  If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please delete all electronic copies of this message and its attachments, if any, destroy any hard copies you may have created and notify me immediately at: ahorky@horkylaw.commailto:ahorky@horkylaw.com.

Tax Advice Disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS under Circular 230, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments), unless otherwise specifically stated, was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any matters addressed herein.

Jay,

That is great. Makes my doom and gloom look a bit silly. Thanks for sharing.

James Zink, Esq.
Florida Rural Legal Services, Inc.
3111 South Dixie Highway, Suite 140
West Palm Beach, FL 33405
Phone: (561) 820-8902 x. 6025
Fax: (561) 820-8892

The information contained in this e-mail, including any attachment(s), is intended solely for use by the named addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, or a person designated as responsible for delivering such messages to the intended recipient, you are not authorized to disclose, copy, distribute or retain this message, in whole or in part, without written authorization from the sender.  If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Jay Taplin
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2014 4:52 PM
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Cure defective notice during pendency of case?

Anthony, please see footnote 1 in the attached case, it is of some help.

Jay A. Taplin
Florida Bar Board Certified Real Estate Law
Taplin & Associates
Suite 1510, Regions Bank Tower
1555 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
(561) 684-8399 (ph)
(561) 471-8055 (fax)
jtaplin@taplinlaw.netmailto:jtaplin@taplinlaw.net

This email is intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise exempt from dislosure under applicable law.  If the reader of this email is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by telephone and return the original message to us at the listed email address.  Thank you.

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Harry Heist
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2014 4:31 PM
To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee'
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Cure defective notice during pendency of case?

This is an example of a messy, confusing statutory change where the Bar sat back and did not get involved. Again.

Harry

LAW OFFICES OF
HEIST, WEISSE, & WOLK P.A.
PH: 1 800 253 8428
FAX: 1 800 367 9038
"Serving the Property Management Professional"
Website:  www.evict.comhttps://u672742.ct.sendgrid.net/wf/click?upn=8nntNZ5zdQ3u0n-2BzXdOTtw52LfdpFuCQN3DP82ASo7Q-3D_DLqHeBUlrlXmMxEotDWgi-2FnMmOSNvhPrg4xLO8IDzSFLDB0N5q446zufKoTvnvp8bd6q2SOryaojVkVbSSdUMxIoCJggZDQp3PTwpRPm5yIOfv7ZP4szGO7yaxmF1p66aGVk7Chm3xarnhvd6tLf6pHSw74-2FZ8Zp-2FpZlfgoWLp81Ffea9LIoUE7yH5vF0OaN0XrCfaQr8KZIFCTX4STiBw-3D-3D
Email: harry@evict.commailto:harry@evict.com
THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE IS CONFIDENTIAL, ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGED, AND INTENDED FOR THE PERSONS NAMED ABOVE ONLY.  ALL OTHER USE, COPYING, OR DISTRIBUTION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of James Zink
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2014 4:23 PM
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Cure defective notice during pendency of case?

Anthony,

I have some of the same questions you have about that change to the statute, and it scares the heck out of me as a tenant attorney as I believe it could be interpreted that way. I can answer at least a few items there. First, I believe there is case law out there that holds a three day notice is not considered a condition precedent. I operate out of the 4th DCA and I am pretty sure it was from that court. I will try to find it.

Second, in the limited times I have actually argued this, I would argue the landlord must at least substantially comply with the three day notice requirement. As in, if the landlord is 100 dollars off and the tenant owes 5000, that is one thing, but if in your case, the landlord doubled the amount owed, I would argue that such a deficiency should not be curable by a simple amendment and requires a new three day notice to be served. In other words, I encourage the judge the read the statute as defining deficiency as incidental or relatively minor, but for major items, would require a new notice. To be honest, this is just trying to give a judge an opening to make a ruling in a tenant's favor, and if you get a judge who just thinks your client should be out, they can probably use that part of the statute to do it. It was a non-sense change to the statute that could be a death knell for tenants in the hands of a landlord friendly judge. I routinely caution clients about this and that different judges could provide very different outcomes before they put money into the registry.

If anyone has anything that can be used to combat this from the DCA level, it would be greatly appreciated, though I know this is largely a landlord rep list serv.

James Zink, Esq.
Florida Rural Legal Services, Inc.
3111 South Dixie Highway, Suite 140
West Palm Beach, FL 33405
Phone: (561) 820-8902 x. 6025
Fax: (561) 820-8892

The information contained in this e-mail, including any attachment(s), is intended solely for use by the named addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, or a person designated as responsible for delivering such messages to the intended recipient, you are not authorized to disclose, copy, distribute or retain this message, in whole or in part, without written authorization from the sender.  If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Anthony J. Horky
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2014 4:12 PM
To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee'
Subject: [RPPTL LandTen] Cure defective notice during pendency of case?

Hello Members.  I'd appreciate your opinions on the following scenario.

Landlord files action for removal of a tenant (residential).  The 3-day notice attached to the complaint is defective because it includes several charges (all of them itemized on the notice) not defined in the lease as rent.  After tenant files motion to dismiss, motion to determine rent, and answers, the court holds a rent determination hearing wherein the tenant is ordered to pay a sum certain into the register.  Tenant does so.  Next, landlord's attorney files a motion to amend the complaint and to amend the three day notice. Landlord does not serve the amended notice.  Instead, the proposed Amended Complaint is identical to the original complaint accept: (a) it no longer alleges items not defined in the lease as rent; and (b)  the 3-day notice attached to it is the amended (corrected) notice.  Moreover, the Amended Complaint still alleges that the 3-day notice (amended) was served on ___ date-the same date as alleged in the original complaint!  In other words, the landlord is alleging that the amended notice was the one originally served.

I've got several problems with that.

Section 83.60(1)(a) says that the "landlord must be given the opportunity to cure a deficiency in a notice or pleading before dismissal of the action."

QUESTIONS:

1.    Does 83.60(1)(a) allow a landlord, in the middle of a lawsuit, to change the amount due in the 3-day notice and proceed to prosecute the eviction?  In my case, the original notice was for double what was actually due-hence the tenant did not pay it.  Now, the corrected notice is for the correct amount, which has already been paid into the registry.
   

2.   If the 3-day notice is a condition precedent to the right to bring a removal action, what are the mechanics for allowing landlord to "cure" a deficient notice before dismissal?  How can the case be allowed to proceed?
   

3.     Is the landlord permitted to falsely allege that the notice (amended notice attached to the complaint) has already been served on the date the deficient notice was served?
   

Thank you for your time and opinions.

Regards,

[cid:image002.png@01CFC860.F39CAA20]

Anthony J. Horky, Esquire
Anthony J. Horky, P.A.
2255 Glades Road, Suite 324A
Boca Raton, Florida 33431
T: 561.989.3206
F: 561.952.0096
www.horkylaw.comhttps://u672742.ct.sendgrid.net/wf/click?upn=8nntNZ5zdQ3u0n-2BzXdOTt2tUgM4TG6VYKURFfMJQWoM-3D_DLqHeBUlrlXmMxEotDWgi-2FnMmOSNvhPrg4xLO8IDzSFLDB0N5q446zufKoTvnvp8bd6q2SOryaojVkVbSSdUM65I-2BSghhreH-2B7kW3cNTAGFushX9NUC7qYJeUxqJxsHLADRu8u2jYqkAf5PM-2FANHpAmemi3eGxU-2Frt30yJaweoYujoEdmLQK620p0t1kFxHHpeSVF6naoF6CLIIUwHjEiQ-3D-3D

This message and the documents attached to it, if any, are intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is attorney-client privileged or confidential, and/or may contain attorney work product.  If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please delete all electronic copies of this message and its attachments, if any, destroy any hard copies you may have created and notify me immediately at: ahorky@horkylaw.commailto:ahorky@horkylaw.com.

Tax Advice Disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS under Circular 230, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments), unless otherwise specifically stated, was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any matters addressed herein.

My pleasure.

Jay A. Taplin
Florida Bar Board Certified Real Estate Law
Taplin & Associates
Suite 1510, Regions Bank Tower
1555 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
(561) 684-8399 (ph)
(561) 471-8055 (fax)
jtaplin@taplinlaw.netmailto:jtaplin@taplinlaw.net

This email is intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise exempt from dislosure under applicable law.  If the reader of this email is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by telephone and return the original message to us at the listed email address.  Thank you.

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of James Zink
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2014 4:55 PM
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Cure defective notice during pendency of case?

Jay,

That is great. Makes my doom and gloom look a bit silly. Thanks for sharing.

James Zink, Esq.
Florida Rural Legal Services, Inc.
3111 South Dixie Highway, Suite 140
West Palm Beach, FL 33405
Phone: (561) 820-8902 x. 6025
Fax: (561) 820-8892

The information contained in this e-mail, including any attachment(s), is intended solely for use by the named addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, or a person designated as responsible for delivering such messages to the intended recipient, you are not authorized to disclose, copy, distribute or retain this message, in whole or in part, without written authorization from the sender.  If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Jay Taplin
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2014 4:52 PM
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Cure defective notice during pendency of case?

Anthony, please see footnote 1 in the attached case, it is of some help.

Jay A. Taplin
Florida Bar Board Certified Real Estate Law
Taplin & Associates
Suite 1510, Regions Bank Tower
1555 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
(561) 684-8399 (ph)
(561) 471-8055 (fax)
jtaplin@taplinlaw.netmailto:jtaplin@taplinlaw.net

This email is intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise exempt from dislosure under applicable law.  If the reader of this email is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by telephone and return the original message to us at the listed email address.  Thank you.

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Harry Heist
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2014 4:31 PM
To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee'
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Cure defective notice during pendency of case?

This is an example of a messy, confusing statutory change where the Bar sat back and did not get involved. Again.

Harry

LAW OFFICES OF
HEIST, WEISSE, & WOLK P.A.
PH: 1 800 253 8428
FAX: 1 800 367 9038
"Serving the Property Management Professional"
Website:  www.evict.comhttps://u672742.ct.sendgrid.net/wf/click?upn=8nntNZ5zdQ3u0n-2BzXdOTtw52LfdpFuCQN3DP82ASo7Q-3D_DLqHeBUlrlXmMxEotDWgi-2FnMmOSNvhPrg4xLO8IDzSFLDB0N5q446zufKoTvnvp8bd6q2SOryaojVkVbSSdUMxIoCJggZDQp3PTwpRPm5yIOfv7ZP4szGO7yaxmF1p66aGVk7Chm3xarnhvd6tLf6pHSw74-2FZ8Zp-2FpZlfgoWLp81Ffea9LIoUE7yH5vF0OaN0XrCfaQr8KZIFCTX4STiBw-3D-3D
Email: harry@evict.commailto:harry@evict.com
THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE IS CONFIDENTIAL, ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGED, AND INTENDED FOR THE PERSONS NAMED ABOVE ONLY.  ALL OTHER USE, COPYING, OR DISTRIBUTION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of James Zink
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2014 4:23 PM
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Cure defective notice during pendency of case?

Anthony,

I have some of the same questions you have about that change to the statute, and it scares the heck out of me as a tenant attorney as I believe it could be interpreted that way. I can answer at least a few items there. First, I believe there is case law out there that holds a three day notice is not considered a condition precedent. I operate out of the 4th DCA and I am pretty sure it was from that court. I will try to find it.

Second, in the limited times I have actually argued this, I would argue the landlord must at least substantially comply with the three day notice requirement. As in, if the landlord is 100 dollars off and the tenant owes 5000, that is one thing, but if in your case, the landlord doubled the amount owed, I would argue that such a deficiency should not be curable by a simple amendment and requires a new three day notice to be served. In other words, I encourage the judge the read the statute as defining deficiency as incidental or relatively minor, but for major items, would require a new notice. To be honest, this is just trying to give a judge an opening to make a ruling in a tenant's favor, and if you get a judge who just thinks your client should be out, they can probably use that part of the statute to do it. It was a non-sense change to the statute that could be a death knell for tenants in the hands of a landlord friendly judge. I routinely caution clients about this and that different judges could provide very different outcomes before they put money into the registry.

If anyone has anything that can be used to combat this from the DCA level, it would be greatly appreciated, though I know this is largely a landlord rep list serv.

James Zink, Esq.
Florida Rural Legal Services, Inc.
3111 South Dixie Highway, Suite 140
West Palm Beach, FL 33405
Phone: (561) 820-8902 x. 6025
Fax: (561) 820-8892

The information contained in this e-mail, including any attachment(s), is intended solely for use by the named addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, or a person designated as responsible for delivering such messages to the intended recipient, you are not authorized to disclose, copy, distribute or retain this message, in whole or in part, without written authorization from the sender.  If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Anthony J. Horky
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2014 4:12 PM
To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee'
Subject: [RPPTL LandTen] Cure defective notice during pendency of case?

Hello Members.  I'd appreciate your opinions on the following scenario.

Landlord files action for removal of a tenant (residential).  The 3-day notice attached to the complaint is defective because it includes several charges (all of them itemized on the notice) not defined in the lease as rent.  After tenant files motion to dismiss, motion to determine rent, and answers, the court holds a rent determination hearing wherein the tenant is ordered to pay a sum certain into the register.  Tenant does so.  Next, landlord's attorney files a motion to amend the complaint and to amend the three day notice. Landlord does not serve the amended notice.  Instead, the proposed Amended Complaint is identical to the original complaint accept: (a) it no longer alleges items not defined in the lease as rent; and (b)  the 3-day notice attached to it is the amended (corrected) notice.  Moreover, the Amended Complaint still alleges that the 3-day notice (amended) was served on ___ date-the same date as alleged in the original complaint!  In other words, the landlord is alleging that the amended notice was the one originally served.

I've got several problems with that.

Section 83.60(1)(a) says that the "landlord must be given the opportunity to cure a deficiency in a notice or pleading before dismissal of the action."

QUESTIONS:

1.    Does 83.60(1)(a) allow a landlord, in the middle of a lawsuit, to change the amount due in the 3-day notice and proceed to prosecute the eviction?  In my case, the original notice was for double what was actually due-hence the tenant did not pay it.  Now, the corrected notice is for the correct amount, which has already been paid into the registry.
   

2.   If the 3-day notice is a condition precedent to the right to bring a removal action, what are the mechanics for allowing landlord to "cure" a deficient notice before dismissal?  How can the case be allowed to proceed?
   

3.     Is the landlord permitted to falsely allege that the notice (amended notice attached to the complaint) has already been served on the date the deficient notice was served?
   

Thank you for your time and opinions.

Regards,

[AJH Logo mark]

Anthony J. Horky, Esquire
Anthony J. Horky, P.A.
2255 Glades Road, Suite 324A
Boca Raton, Florida 33431
T: 561.989.3206
F: 561.952.0096
www.horkylaw.comhttps://u672742.ct.sendgrid.net/wf/click?upn=8nntNZ5zdQ3u0n-2BzXdOTt2tUgM4TG6VYKURFfMJQWoM-3D_DLqHeBUlrlXmMxEotDWgi-2FnMmOSNvhPrg4xLO8IDzSFLDB0N5q446zufKoTvnvp8bd6q2SOryaojVkVbSSdUM65I-2BSghhreH-2B7kW3cNTAGFushX9NUC7qYJeUxqJxsHLADRu8u2jYqkAf5PM-2FANHpAmemi3eGxU-2Frt30yJaweoYujoEdmLQK620p0t1kFxHHpeSVF6naoF6CLIIUwHjEiQ-3D-3D

This message and the documents attached to it, if any, are intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is attorney-client privileged or confidential, and/or may contain attorney work product.  If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please delete all electronic copies of this message and its attachments, if any, destroy any hard copies you may have created and notify me immediately at: ahorky@horkylaw.commailto:ahorky@horkylaw.com.

Tax Advice Disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS under Circular 230, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments), unless otherwise specifically stated, was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any matters addressed herein.

Someone on this list stated that this amendment would cause more problems was right.  As far a jurisdiction there are 3 prongs to jurisdiction, Subject matter, personal, and procedural. There is a Bar Journal article that explains this and is available online on the Fl bar webpage.  What most tenant filed was a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction due to a three day notice
Failed to explain procedural jurisdiction which would include a condition precedent.  Others filed motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action which is more accurate since the condition precedent was not fulfilled.

With the new law it seems he condition precedent can be corrected by serving a new notice and an amended complaint which I would argue is not allowed by Chapter 51.  My conundrum is does a motion to determine rent heard before a motion to dismiss for defective notice so the landlord can correct the pleading.  If the landlord can amend a notice and serves it and the tenant complies is the case dismissed, moot or does it proceed.  In any case who is the prevailing party? Who is entitle to Costs and fees?  If the court requires the rent in the registry of the court before the amended notice how can the tenant tender rent that is in the court registry?
Can the tenant file a counterclaim for a FCCPA violation (Fl Consumer Collection Protection Act 559.72) for a notice that demands money not due?

Leonard P. Cabral, Esq.
Leonardcabral@lenslaw.com

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Jay Taplin
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2014 4:52 PM
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Cure defective notice during pendency of case?

Anthony, please see footnote 1 in the attached case, it is of some help.

Jay A. Taplin
Florida Bar Board Certified Real Estate Law
Taplin & Associates
Suite 1510, Regions Bank Tower
1555 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
(561) 684-8399 (ph)
(561) 471-8055 (fax)
jtaplin@taplinlaw.netmailto:jtaplin@taplinlaw.net

This email is intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise exempt from dislosure under applicable law.  If the reader of this email is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by telephone and return the original message to us at the listed email address.  Thank you.

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Harry Heist
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2014 4:31 PM
To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee'
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Cure defective notice during pendency of case?

This is an example of a messy, confusing statutory change where the Bar sat back and did not get involved. Again.

Harry

LAW OFFICES OF
HEIST, WEISSE, & WOLK P.A.
PH: 1 800 253 8428
FAX: 1 800 367 9038
"Serving the Property Management Professional"
Website:  www.evict.comhttps://u672742.ct.sendgrid.net/wf/click?upn=8nntNZ5zdQ3u0n-2BzXdOTtw52LfdpFuCQN3DP82ASo7Q-3D_DLqHeBUlrlXmMxEotDWgi-2FnMmOSNvhPrg4xLO8IDzSFLDB0N5q446zufKoTvnvp8bd6q2SOryaojVkVbSSdUMxIoCJggZDQp3PTwpRPm5yIOfv7ZP4szGO7yaxmF1p66aGVk7Chm3xarnhvd6tLf6pHSw74-2FZ8Zp-2FpZlfgoWLp81Ffea9LIoUE7yH5vF0OaN0XrCfaQr8KZIFCTX4STiBw-3D-3D
Email: harry@evict.commailto:harry@evict.com
THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE IS CONFIDENTIAL, ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGED, AND INTENDED FOR THE PERSONS NAMED ABOVE ONLY.  ALL OTHER USE, COPYING, OR DISTRIBUTION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of James Zink
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2014 4:23 PM
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Cure defective notice during pendency of case?

Anthony,

I have some of the same questions you have about that change to the statute, and it scares the heck out of me as a tenant attorney as I believe it could be interpreted that way. I can answer at least a few items there. First, I believe there is case law out there that holds a three day notice is not considered a condition precedent. I operate out of the 4th DCA and I am pretty sure it was from that court. I will try to find it.

Second, in the limited times I have actually argued this, I would argue the landlord must at least substantially comply with the three day notice requirement. As in, if the landlord is 100 dollars off and the tenant owes 5000, that is one thing, but if in your case, the landlord doubled the amount owed, I would argue that such a deficiency should not be curable by a simple amendment and requires a new three day notice to be served. In other words, I encourage the judge the read the statute as defining deficiency as incidental or relatively minor, but for major items, would require a new notice. To be honest, this is just trying to give a judge an opening to make a ruling in a tenant's favor, and if you get a judge who just thinks your client should be out, they can probably use that part of the statute to do it. It was a non-sense change to the statute that could be a death knell for tenants in the hands of a landlord friendly judge. I routinely caution clients about this and that different judges could provide very different outcomes before they put money into the registry.

If anyone has anything that can be used to combat this from the DCA level, it would be greatly appreciated, though I know this is largely a landlord rep list serv.

James Zink, Esq.
Florida Rural Legal Services, Inc.
3111 South Dixie Highway, Suite 140
West Palm Beach, FL 33405
Phone: (561) 820-8902 x. 6025
Fax: (561) 820-8892

The information contained in this e-mail, including any attachment(s), is intended solely for use by the named addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, or a person designated as responsible for delivering such messages to the intended recipient, you are not authorized to disclose, copy, distribute or retain this message, in whole or in part, without written authorization from the sender.  If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Anthony J. Horky
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2014 4:12 PM
To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee'
Subject: [RPPTL LandTen] Cure defective notice during pendency of case?

Hello Members.  I'd appreciate your opinions on the following scenario.

Landlord files action for removal of a tenant (residential).  The 3-day notice attached to the complaint is defective because it includes several charges (all of them itemized on the notice) not defined in the lease as rent.  After tenant files motion to dismiss, motion to determine rent, and answers, the court holds a rent determination hearing wherein the tenant is ordered to pay a sum certain into the register.  Tenant does so.  Next, landlord's attorney files a motion to amend the complaint and to amend the three day notice. Landlord does not serve the amended notice.  Instead, the proposed Amended Complaint is identical to the original complaint accept: (a) it no longer alleges items not defined in the lease as rent; and (b)  the 3-day notice attached to it is the amended (corrected) notice.  Moreover, the Amended Complaint still alleges that the 3-day notice (amended) was served on ___ date-the same date as alleged in the original complaint!  In other words, the landlord is alleging that the amended notice was the one originally served.

I've got several problems with that.

Section 83.60(1)(a) says that the "landlord must be given the opportunity to cure a deficiency in a notice or pleading before dismissal of the action."

QUESTIONS:

1.    Does 83.60(1)(a) allow a landlord, in the middle of a lawsuit, to change the amount due in the 3-day notice and proceed to prosecute the eviction?  In my case, the original notice was for double what was actually due-hence the tenant did not pay it.  Now, the corrected notice is for the correct amount, which has already been paid into the registry.
   

2.   If the 3-day notice is a condition precedent to the right to bring a removal action, what are the mechanics for allowing landlord to "cure" a deficient notice before dismissal?  How can the case be allowed to proceed?
   

3.     Is the landlord permitted to falsely allege that the notice (amended notice attached to the complaint) has already been served on the date the deficient notice was served?
   

Thank you for your time and opinions.

Regards,

[AJH Logo mark]

Anthony J. Horky, Esquire
Anthony J. Horky, P.A.
2255 Glades Road, Suite 324A
Boca Raton, Florida 33431
T: 561.989.3206
F: 561.952.0096
www.horkylaw.comhttps://u672742.ct.sendgrid.net/wf/click?upn=8nntNZ5zdQ3u0n-2BzXdOTt2tUgM4TG6VYKURFfMJQWoM-3D_DLqHeBUlrlXmMxEotDWgi-2FnMmOSNvhPrg4xLO8IDzSFLDB0N5q446zufKoTvnvp8bd6q2SOryaojVkVbSSdUM65I-2BSghhreH-2B7kW3cNTAGFushX9NUC7qYJeUxqJxsHLADRu8u2jYqkAf5PM-2FANHpAmemi3eGxU-2Frt30yJaweoYujoEdmLQK620p0t1kFxHHpeSVF6naoF6CLIIUwHjEiQ-3D-3D

This message and the documents attached to it, if any, are intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is attorney-client privileged or confidential, and/or may contain attorney work product.  If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please delete all electronic copies of this message and its attachments, if any, destroy any hard copies you may have created and notify me immediately at: ahorky@horkylaw.commailto:ahorky@horkylaw.com.

Tax Advice Disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS under Circular 230, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments), unless otherwise specifically stated, was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any matters addressed herein.

Thank you everyone for your responses.  This might be an ActionLine article
in the making.

Regards,

AJH Logo mark

Anthony J. Horky, Esquire

Anthony J. Horky, P.A.

2255 Glades Road, Suite 324A

Boca Raton, Florida 33431

T: 561.989.3206

F: 561.952.0096

www.horkylaw.com

This message and the documents attached to it, if any, are intended only for
the use of the addressee and may contain information that is attorney-client
privileged or confidential, and/or may contain attorney work product.  If
you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this communication in error, please delete all electronic copies of
this message and its attachments, if any, destroy any hard copies you may
have created and notify me immediately at:  mailto:ahorky@horkylaw.com
ahorky@horkylaw.com.

Tax Advice Disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the
IRS under Circular 230, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice
contained in this communication (including any attachments), unless
otherwise specifically stated, was not intended or written to be used, and
cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal
Revenue Code or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party
any matters addressed herein.

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org
[mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Leonard Cabral
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2014 7:24 PM
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Cure defective notice during pendency of case?

Someone on this list stated that this amendment would cause more problems
was right.  As far a jurisdiction there are 3 prongs to jurisdiction,
Subject matter, personal, and procedural. There is a Bar Journal article
that explains this and is available online on the Fl bar webpage.  What most
tenant filed was a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction due to a three
day notice

Failed to explain procedural jurisdiction which would include a condition
precedent.  Others filed motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of
action which is more accurate since the condition precedent was not
fulfilled.

With the new law it seems he condition precedent can be corrected by serving
a new notice and an amended complaint which I would argue is not allowed by
Chapter 51.  My conundrum is does a motion to determine rent heard before a
motion to dismiss for defective notice so the landlord can correct the
pleading.  If the landlord can amend a notice and serves it and the tenant
complies is the case dismissed, moot or does it proceed.  In any case who is
the prevailing party? Who is entitle to Costs and fees?  If the court
requires the rent in the registry of the court before the amended notice how
can the tenant tender rent that is in the court registry?

Can the tenant file a counterclaim for a FCCPA violation (Fl Consumer
Collection Protection Act 559.72) for a notice that demands money not due?

Leonard P. Cabral, Esq.

Leonardcabral@lenslaw.com

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org
[mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Jay Taplin
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2014 4:52 PM
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Cure defective notice during pendency of case?

Anthony, please see footnote 1 in the attached case, it is of some help.

Jay A. Taplin

Florida Bar Board Certified Real Estate Law
Taplin & Associates
Suite 1510, Regions Bank Tower
1555 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
(561) 684-8399 (ph)
(561) 471-8055 (fax)
mailto:jtaplin@taplinlaw.net jtaplin@taplinlaw.net

This email is intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is
addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or
otherwise exempt from dislosure under applicable law.  If the reader of this
email is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for
delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is
strictly prohibited.  If you have received this communication in error,
please immediately notify us by telephone and return the original message to
us at the listed email address.  Thank you.

From:  mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org
landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [
mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org
mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Harry Heist
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2014 4:31 PM
To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee'
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Cure defective notice during pendency of case?

This is an example of a messy, confusing statutory change where the Bar sat
back and did not get involved. Again.

Harry

LAW OFFICES OF
HEIST, WEISSE, & WOLK P.A.
PH: 1 800 253 8428
FAX: 1 800 367 9038
"Serving the Property Management Professional"
Website:
<https://u672742.ct.sendgrid.net/wf/click?upn=8nntNZ5zdQ3u0n-2BzXdOTtw52Lfdp
FuCQN3DP82ASo7Q-3D_DLqHeBUlrlXmMxEotDWgi-2FnMmOSNvhPrg4xLO8IDzSFLDB0N5q446zu
fKoTvnvp8bd6q2SOryaojVkVbSSdUMxIoCJggZDQp3PTwpRPm5yIOfv7ZP4szGO7yaxmF1p66aGV
k7Chm3xarnhvd6tLf6pHSw74-2FZ8Zp-2FpZlfgoWLp81Ffea9LIoUE7yH5vF0OaN0XrCfaQr8KZ
IFCTX4STiBw-3D-3D> www.evict.com
Email:  mailto:harry@evict.com harry@evict.com

THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE IS CONFIDENTIAL, ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGED, AND
INTENDED FOR THE PERSONS NAMED ABOVE ONLY.  ALL OTHER USE, COPYING, OR
DISTRIBUTION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.

From:  mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org
landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [
mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org
mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of James Zink
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2014 4:23 PM
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Cure defective notice during pendency of case?

Anthony,

I have some of the same questions you have about that change to the statute,
and it scares the heck out of me as a tenant attorney as I believe it could
be interpreted that way. I can answer at least a few items there. First, I
believe there is case law out there that holds a three day notice is not
considered a condition precedent. I operate out of the 4th DCA and I am
pretty sure it was from that court. I will try to find it.

Second, in the limited times I have actually argued this, I would argue the
landlord must at least substantially comply with the three day notice
requirement. As in, if the landlord is 100 dollars off and the tenant owes
5000, that is one thing, but if in your case, the landlord doubled the
amount owed, I would argue that such a deficiency should not be curable by a
simple amendment and requires a new three day notice to be served. In other
words, I encourage the judge the read the statute as defining deficiency as
incidental or relatively minor, but for major items, would require a new
notice. To be honest, this is just trying to give a judge an opening to make
a ruling in a tenant's favor, and if you get a judge who just thinks your
client should be out, they can probably use that part of the statute to do
it. It was a non-sense change to the statute that could be a death knell for
tenants in the hands of a landlord friendly judge. I routinely caution
clients about this and that different judges could provide very different
outcomes before they put money into the registry.

If anyone has anything that can be used to combat this from the DCA level,
it would be greatly appreciated, though I know this is largely a landlord
rep list serv.

James Zink, Esq.

Florida Rural Legal Services, Inc.

3111 South Dixie Highway, Suite 140

West Palm Beach, FL 33405

Phone: (561) 820-8902 x. 6025

Fax: (561) 820-8892

The information contained in this e-mail, including any attachment(s), is
intended solely for use by the named addressee(s). If you are not the
intended recipient, or a person designated as responsible for delivering
such messages to the intended recipient, you are not authorized to disclose,
copy, distribute or retain this message, in whole or in part, without
written authorization from the sender.  If you have received this message in
error, please notify the sender immediately

From:  mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org
landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [
mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org
mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Anthony J. Horky
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2014 4:12 PM
To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee'
Subject: [RPPTL LandTen] Cure defective notice during pendency of case?

Hello Members.  I'd appreciate your opinions on the following scenario.

Landlord files action for removal of a tenant (residential).  The 3-day
notice attached to the complaint is defective because it includes several
charges (all of them itemized on the notice) not defined in the lease as
rent.  After tenant files motion to dismiss, motion to determine rent, and
answers, the court holds a rent determination hearing wherein the tenant is
ordered to pay a sum certain into the register.  Tenant does so.  Next,
landlord's attorney files a motion to amend the complaint and to amend the
three day notice. Landlord does not serve the amended notice.  Instead, the
proposed Amended Complaint is identical to the original complaint accept:
(a) it no longer alleges items not defined in the lease as rent; and (b)
the 3-day notice attached to it is the amended (corrected) notice.
Moreover, the Amended Complaint still alleges that the 3-day notice
(amended) was served on ___ date-the same date as alleged in the original
complaint!  In other words, the landlord is alleging that the amended
notice was the one originally served.

I've got several problems with that.

Section 83.60(1)(a) says that the "landlord must be given the opportunity to
cure a deficiency in a notice or pleading before dismissal of the action."

QUESTIONS:

1.    Does 83.60(1)(a) allow a landlord, in the middle of a lawsuit, to
   

change the amount due in the 3-day notice and proceed to prosecute the
eviction?  In my case, the original notice was for double what was actually
due-hence the tenant did not pay it.  Now, the corrected notice is for the
correct amount, which has already been paid into the registry.

2.   If the 3-day notice is a condition precedent to the right to bring
   

a removal action, what are the mechanics for allowing landlord to "cure" a
deficient notice before dismissal?  How can the case be allowed to proceed?

3.     Is the landlord permitted to falsely allege that the notice
   

(amended notice attached to the complaint) has already been served on the
date the deficient notice was served?

Thank you for your time and opinions.

Regards,

AJH Logo mark

Anthony J. Horky, Esquire

Anthony J. Horky, P.A.

2255 Glades Road, Suite 324A

Boca Raton, Florida 33431

T: 561.989.3206

F: 561.952.0096

www.horkylaw.com
<https://u672742.ct.sendgrid.net/wf/click?upn=8nntNZ5zdQ3u0n-2BzXdOTt2tUgM4T
G6VYKURFfMJQWoM-3D_DLqHeBUlrlXmMxEotDWgi-2FnMmOSNvhPrg4xLO8IDzSFLDB0N5q446zu
fKoTvnvp8bd6q2SOryaojVkVbSSdUM65I-2BSghhreH-2B7kW3cNTAGFushX9NUC7qYJeUxqJxsH
LADRu8u2jYqkAf5PM-2FANHpAmemi3eGxU-2Frt30yJaweoYujoEdmLQK620p0t1kFxHHpeSVF6n
aoF6CLIIUwHjEiQ-3D-3D>

This message and the documents attached to it, if any, are intended only for
the use of the addressee and may contain information that is attorney-client
privileged or confidential, and/or may contain attorney work product.  If
you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this communication in error, please delete all electronic copies of
this message and its attachments, if any, destroy any hard copies you may
have created and notify me immediately at:  mailto:ahorky@horkylaw.com
ahorky@horkylaw.com.

Tax Advice Disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the
IRS under Circular 230, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice
contained in this communication (including any attachments), unless
otherwise specifically stated, was not intended or written to be used, and
cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal
Revenue Code or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party
any matters addressed herein.

Image removed by sender.