Good afternoon, fellow L/T Committee members,

Conrad Kahn, in his trailing email, suggests that the committee consider proposing an amendment to Florida Statutes § 83.60.  As chair of the legislative subcommittee, I'd like to get a feel for committee member support for Conrad's suggestion.  I'd also like to hear from those willing to work on this matter.  Thank you, Rick
Richard Eckhard | Holland & Knight
Equity Partner
100 North Tampa Street, Suite 4100 | Tampa FL 33602
Phone 813.227.6417 | Fax 813.229.0134
rick.eckhard@hklaw.commailto:rick.eckhard@hklaw.com | www.hklaw.comhttp://www.hklaw.com/

Add to address bookhttp://www.hklaw.com/vcard.aspx?user=Reckhard | View professional biographyhttp://www.hklaw.com/id77/biosReckhard

From: Conrad Kahn [mailto:conradkahn@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 11:53 AM
To: Lloyd Granet; safrank@arnstein.commailto:safrank@arnstein.com
Subject: N-1003 - Landlord Tenant Committee: Legislative Proposal - Landlord Tenant Committee - Evictions

Lloyd & Scott,

I'm a member of the Landlord/Tenant committee for the RPPTL section of the bar.  I have an idea for a legislative proposal regarding evictions and I'd like to share my idea with you and, if possible, receive some feedback if you think it is feasible or an idea worth exploring.

In my practice, I deal with evictions often.  Often, a tenant files a "Motion to Determine Rent" under Florida Statutes § 83.60 merely as a delay tactic.  The hearing proceeds, and even when the tenant admits the amount of rent at the hearing, the judge nonetheless allows the tenant further time from the date of the hearing to deposit the rent into the Court.

This whole charade by tenants circumvents the purpose of the relevant statutes in affording Landlords a quick eviction remedy.

My proposal is as follows:  If a tenant wishes to file a "Motion to Determine Rent," the Tenant must also file a verified affidavit stating what the tenant believes the rent should be, deposit that amount into the Court with the filing of the motion, and state the grounds for why the rent should be lower than the amount alleged in the complaint.  In addition, based on the verified affidavit and motion, the Judge should be permitted to make a determination ex-parte, in Chambers without a hearing.

I truly believe this process would help ameliorate the problem of landlords face when tenants filed unwarranted "Motions to Determine Rent."

What do you think?

Conrad Kahn Esq.
Conrad Kahn P.L.
FBN. 104456
P.O. Box 41-4213
Miami Beach, FL 33141
T.  (305) 865-0865
F.  (305) 200-0139
Email:  ConradKahn@gmail.commailto:ConradKahn@gmail.com

PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIAL NOTICE:  This e-mail is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521 and is legally privileged.  The contents of this e-mail message and any attachments are intended solely for the party or parties addressed and named in this message.  This communication and all attachments, if any, are intended to be and to remain confidential, and it may be subject to the applicable attorney-client and or work product privileges.  If you are not the intended recipient of this message, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this message and its attachments.  Do not deliver, distribute, or copy this message and or any attachments if you are not the intended recipient.  Do not disclose the contents or take any action in reliance upon the information contained in this communication or any attachments.  Although this e-mail and any attachments are believed to be free of any virus or other defect that might affect any computer into which it is received and opened, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that it is virus free and no responsibility is accepted by Conrad Kahn P.L. for damage arising in any way from its use.

IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS IMPOSED BY THE IRS, WE INFORM YOU THAT ANY TAX ADVICE CONTAINED IN THIS COMMUNICATION (INCLUDING ANY ATTACHMENTS) IS NOT INTENDED OR WRITTEN BY HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP TO BE USED, AND CANNOT BE USED, FOR THE PURPOSE OF (I) AVOIDING TAX-RELATED PENALTIES UNDER THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, OR (II) PROMOTING, MARKETING, OR RECOMMENDING TO ANOTHER PARTY ANY TAX-RELATED MATTER HEREIN.

NOTE: This e-mail is from a law firm, Holland & Knight LLP ("H&K"), and is intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. If you believe you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately, delete the e-mail from your computer and do not copy or disclose it to anyone else. If you are not an existing client of H&K, do not construe anything in this e-mail to make you a client unless it contains a specific statement to that effect and do not disclose anything to H&K in reply that you expect it to hold in confidence. If you properly received this e-mail as a client, co-counsel or retained expert of H&K, you should maintain its contents in confidence in order to preserve the attorney-client or work product privilege that may be available to protect confidentiality.

I agree with Conrad 100% and have faced the same problem many times.  Here in PBC, we have a self help center and they regularly counsel tenants to file the Motion to Determine Rent knowing full well the statements are false and is filed solely as a delay tactic.  I'd be willing to work on a committee on this issue. In addition, I would propose the statutory amendment contain language that after the hearing and once the Judge does determine the amount of rent owed, that there be a maximum timeframe that the tenant must post or face automatic FJ - e.g. 3-5 days.  At that point, it has been judicially determined the tenant didn't pay rent, so the short timeline would not prejudice the tenant since it's already a past due obligation. 

The reason I bring this up is because some "tenant friendly" judges will often determine that rent is owed and it can often be 3-4 months worth of rent, but give the tenant 2 or even 3 weeks to post, then the hearing a week or more after that.  This basically grants the tenant another free month of rent, which again, completely subverts the purpose of the expedited procedure.

I might also suggest a deadline on when the final hearing would be scheduled after the posting of rent deadline, but I understand that Judge's dockets can be busy and it might be taking it too far to statutorily set a timeline on hearing dates.

My 2 cents.

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.

On Thursday, December 12, 2013 2:11 PM, "rick.eckhard@hklaw.com" rick.eckhard@hklaw.com wrote:

Good afternoon, fellow L/T Committee members,
 
Conrad Kahn, in his trailing email, suggests that the committee consider proposing an amendment to Florida Statutes § 83.60.  As chair of the legislative subcommittee, I'd like to get a feel for committee member support for Conrad's suggestion.  I'd also like to hear from those willing to work on this matter.  Thank you, Rick
Richard Eckhard| Holland & Knight
Equity Partner
100 North Tampa Street, Suite 4100 | Tampa FL 33602
Phone 813.227.6417 | Fax 813.229.0134
rick.eckhard@hklaw.com | www.hklaw.com
Add to address book |View professional biography
 
 
 

From:Conrad Kahn [mailto:conradkahn@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 11:53 AM
To: Lloyd Granet; safrank@arnstein.com
Subject: N-1003 - Landlord Tenant Committee: Legislative Proposal - Landlord Tenant Committee - Evictions
 
Lloyd & Scott,
 
I’m a member of the Landlord/Tenant committee for the RPPTL section of the bar.  I have an idea for a legislative proposal regarding evictions and I’d like to share my idea with you and, if possible, receive some feedback if you think it is feasible or an idea worth exploring.
 
In my practice, I deal with evictions often.  Often, a tenant files a “Motion to Determine Rent” under Florida Statutes § 83.60 merely as a delay tactic.  The hearing proceeds, and even when the tenant admits the amount of rent at the hearing, the judge nonetheless allows the tenant further time from the date of the hearing to deposit the rent into the Court. 
 
This whole charade by tenants circumvents the purpose of the relevant statutes in affording Landlords a quick eviction remedy. 
 
My proposal is as follows:  If a tenant wishes to file a “Motion to Determine Rent,” the Tenant must also file a verified affidavit stating what the tenant believes the rent should be, deposit that amount into the Court with the filing of the motion, and state the grounds for why the rent should be lower than the amount alleged in the complaint.  In addition, based on the verified affidavit and motion, the Judge should be permitted to make a determination ex-parte, in Chambers without a hearing.
 
I truly believe this process would help ameliorate the problem of landlords face when tenants filed unwarranted “Motions to Determine Rent.”
 
What do you think?
 
Conrad Kahn Esq.
Conrad Kahn P.L.
FBN. 104456
P.O. Box 41-4213
Miami Beach, FL 33141
T.  (305) 865-0865
F.  (305) 200-0139
Email:  ConradKahn@gmail.com
 
PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIAL NOTICE:  This e-mail is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521 and is legally privileged.  The contents of this e-mail message and any attachments are intended solely for the party or parties addressed and named in this message.  This communication and all attachments, if any, are intended to be and to remain confidential, and it may be subject to the applicable attorney-client and or work product privileges.  If you are not the intended recipient of this message, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this message and its attachments.  Do not deliver, distribute, or copy this message and or any attachments if you are not the intended recipient.  Do not disclose the contents or take any action in reliance upon the information contained in this communication or any attachments.  Although this e-mail and
any attachments are believed to be free of any virus or other defect that might affect any computer into which it is received and opened, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that it is virus free and no responsibility is accepted by Conrad Kahn P.L. for damage arising in any way from its use. 

IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS IMPOSED BY THE IRS, WE INFORM YOU THAT ANY TAX ADVICE CONTAINED IN THIS COMMUNICATION (INCLUDING ANY ATTACHMENTS) IS NOT INTENDED OR WRITTEN BY HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP TO BE USED, AND CANNOT BE USED, FOR THE PURPOSE OF (I) AVOIDING TAX-RELATED PENALTIES UNDER THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, OR (II) PROMOTING, MARKETING, OR RECOMMENDING TO ANOTHER PARTY ANY TAX-RELATED MATTER HEREIN.

NOTE: This e-mail is from a law firm, Holland & Knight LLP (“H&K”), and is intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. If you believe you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately, delete the e-mail from
your computer and do not copy or disclose it to anyone else. If you are not an existing client of H&K, do not construe anything in this e-mail to make you a client unless it contains a specific statement to that effect and do not disclose anything to H&K in
reply that you expect it to hold in confidence. If you properly received this e-mail as a client, co-counsel or retained expert of H&K, you should maintain its contents in confidence in order to preserve the attorney-client or work product privilege that may
be available to protect confidentiality.

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

I agree with the previous comments.
Did I miss it or is this proposal to be only on the residential side? Frankly, I think we have a better chance of passing it on the commercial side first, and then bringing it over to the residential side once we establish it is a fair balancing of the equities. The objections to the residential side are going to be that it gives landlords too much power

[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]

U.S. Treasury Regulation Circular 230 requires us to advise you that written communications issued by us are not intended to be and cannot be relied upon to avoid penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service.

Incoming emails are filtered which may delay receipt. This email is personal to the named recipient(s) and may be privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you received this in error. If so, any review, dissemination, or copying of this email is prohibited. Please immediately notify us by email and delete the original message..

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Cary Sabol
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 2:32 PM
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] FW: N-1003 - Landlord Tenant Committee: Legislative Proposal - Landlord Tenant Committee - Evictions

I agree with Conrad 100% and have faced the same problem many times.  Here in PBC, we have a self help center and they regularly counsel tenants to file the Motion to Determine Rent knowing full well the statements are false and is filed solely as a delay tactic.  I'd be willing to work on a committee on this issue. In addition, I would propose the statutory amendment contain language that after the hearing and once the Judge does determine the amount of rent owed, that there be a maximum timeframe that the tenant must post or face automatic FJ - e.g. 3-5 days.  At that point, it has been judicially determined the tenant didn't pay rent, so the short timeline would not prejudice the tenant since it's already a past due obligation.

The reason I bring this up is because some "tenant friendly" judges will often determine that rent is owed and it can often be 3-4 months worth of rent, but give the tenant 2 or even 3 weeks to post, then the hearing a week or more after that.  This basically grants the tenant another free month of rent, which again, completely subverts the purpose of the expedited procedure.

I might also suggest a deadline on when the final hearing would be scheduled after the posting of rent deadline, but I understand that Judge's dockets can be busy and it might be taking it too far to statutorily set a timeline on hearing dates.

My 2 cents.

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.

On Thursday, December 12, 2013 2:11 PM, "rick.eckhard@hklaw.commailto:rick.eckhard@hklaw.com" <rick.eckhard@hklaw.commailto:rick.eckhard@hklaw.com> wrote:
Good afternoon, fellow L/T Committee members,

Conrad Kahn, in his trailing email, suggests that the committee consider proposing an amendment to Florida Statutes § 83.60.  As chair of the legislative subcommittee, I'd like to get a feel for committee member support for Conrad's suggestion.  I'd also like to hear from those willing to work on this matter.  Thank you, Rick
Richard Eckhard | Holland & Knight
Equity Partner
100 North Tampa Street, Suite 4100 | Tampa FL 33602
Phone 813.227.6417 | Fax 813.229.0134
rick.eckhard@hklaw.commailto:rick.eckhard@hklaw.com | www.hklaw.comhttp://www.hklaw.com/

Add to address bookhttp://www.hklaw.com/vcard.aspx?user=Reckhard | View professional biographyhttp://www.hklaw.com/id77/biosReckhard

From: Conrad Kahn [mailto:conradkahn@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 11:53 AM
To: Lloyd Granet; safrank@arnstein.commailto:safrank@arnstein.com
Subject: N-1003 - Landlord Tenant Committee: Legislative Proposal - Landlord Tenant Committee - Evictions

Lloyd & Scott,

I’m a member of the Landlord/Tenant committee for the RPPTL section of the bar.  I have an idea for a legislative proposal regarding evictions and I’d like to share my idea with you and, if possible, receive some feedback if you think it is feasible or an idea worth exploring.

In my practice, I deal with evictions often.  Often, a tenant files a “Motion to Determine Rent” under Florida Statutes § 83.60 merely as a delay tactic.  The hearing proceeds, and even when the tenant admits the amount of rent at the hearing, the judge nonetheless allows the tenant further time from the date of the hearing to deposit the rent into the Court.

This whole charade by tenants circumvents the purpose of the relevant statutes in affording Landlords a quick eviction remedy.

My proposal is as follows:  If a tenant wishes to file a “Motion to Determine Rent,” the Tenant must also file a verified affidavit stating what the tenant believes the rent should be, deposit that amount into the Court with the filing of the motion, and state the grounds for why the rent should be lower than the amount alleged in the complaint.  In addition, based on the verified affidavit and motion, the Judge should be permitted to make a determination ex-parte, in Chambers without a hearing.

I truly believe this process would help ameliorate the problem of landlords face when tenants filed unwarranted “Motions to Determine Rent.”

What do you think?

Conrad Kahn Esq.
Conrad Kahn P.L.
FBN. 104456
P.O. Box 41-4213
Miami Beach, FL 33141
T.  (305) 865-0865
F.  (305) 200-0139
Email:  ConradKahn@gmail.commailto:ConradKahn@gmail.com

PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIAL NOTICE:  This e-mail is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521 and is legally privileged.  The contents of this e-mail message and any attachments are intended solely for the party or parties addressed and named in this message.  This communication and all attachments, if any, are intended to be and to remain confidential, and it may be subject to the applicable attorney-client and or work product privileges.  If you are not the intended recipient of this message, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this message and its attachments.  Do not deliver, distribute, or copy this message and or any attachments if you are not the intended recipient.  Do not disclose the contents or take any action in reliance upon the information contained in this communication or any attachments.  Although this e-mail and any attachments are believed to be free of any virus or other defect that might affect any computer into which it is received and opened, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that it is virus free and no responsibility is accepted by Conrad Kahn P.L. for damage arising in any way from its use.

IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS IMPOSED BY THE IRS, WE INFORM YOU THAT ANY TAX ADVICE CONTAINED IN THIS COMMUNICATION (INCLUDING ANY ATTACHMENTS) IS NOT INTENDED OR WRITTEN BY HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP TO BE USED, AND CANNOT BE USED, FOR THE PURPOSE OF (I) AVOIDING TAX-RELATED PENALTIES UNDER THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, OR (II) PROMOTING, MARKETING, OR RECOMMENDING TO ANOTHER PARTY ANY TAX-RELATED MATTER HEREIN.

NOTE: This e-mail is from a law firm, Holland & Knight LLP (“H&K”), and is intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. If you believe you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately, delete the e-mail from your computer and do not copy or disclose it to anyone else. If you are not an existing client of H&K, do not construe anything in this e-mail to make you a client unless it contains a specific statement to that effect and do not disclose anything to H&K in reply that you expect it to hold in confidence. If you properly received this e-mail as a client, co-counsel or retained expert of H&K, you should maintain its contents in confidence in order to preserve the attorney-client or work product privilege that may be available to protect confidentiality.

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

Speaking from the tenant’s side, I am not sure the proposed language is appropriate. Having a maximum number of days for deposit is one thing and worth discussing, but I also believe it is too much of a burden on the individual for the to be getting verified responses filed. The statute already requires evidence be presented with the filing, not simply filing a motion itself. If a judge ignores that and simply grants a hearing based solely on a motion without evidence, that is a judicial discretion issue, not a statutory issue.

Further, this process is already in summary procedure which moves it faster than a normal suit. It’s one thing perhaps to adjust the time in which deposits need be made. It is another to create huge burdens due to a few bad actors in a process that is already expedited compared to most other areas. How is someone supposed to know how much their rent should be reduced for failure to make repairs? Certain things should be left to a fact finder, not the guessing of a pro se tenant.

I operate in the same county as Cary. I cannot say I have seen anything close to that amount of time being offered to my client. To be honest, most times we get the 3-5 days, which I think is the appropriate amount of time because, as Cary said, the presumption is that they have the money but were never given the opportunity to deposit. I think that is reasonable to discuss. All these extra burdens, however, I am not sure are equitable to both parties.

Lastly, since I really think this is an issue with tenant friendly judges being overly generous with their timelines, I have just as many frustrations with landlord friendly judges that ignore clear evidence for reducing rent and refusing rent determination hearings. Just saying that the process, while not perfect, might be ok with some judicial discretion.

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 Cary Sabol
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 2:32 PM
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] FW: N-1003 - Landlord Tenant Committee: Legislative Proposal - Landlord Tenant Committee - Evictions

I agree with Conrad 100% and have faced the same problem many times.  Here in PBC, we have a self help center and they regularly counsel tenants to file the Motion to Determine Rent knowing full well the statements are false and is filed solely as a delay tactic.  I'd be willing to work on a committee on this issue. In addition, I would propose the statutory amendment contain language that after the hearing and once the Judge does determine the amount of rent owed, that there be a maximum timeframe that the tenant must post or face automatic FJ - e.g. 3-5 days.  At that point, it has been judicially determined the tenant didn't pay rent, so the short timeline would not prejudice the tenant since it's already a past due obligation.

The reason I bring this up is because some "tenant friendly" judges will often determine that rent is owed and it can often be 3-4 months worth of rent, but give the tenant 2 or even 3 weeks to post, then the hearing a week or more after that.  This basically grants the tenant another free month of rent, which again, completely subverts the purpose of the expedited procedure.

I might also suggest a deadline on when the final hearing would be scheduled after the posting of rent deadline, but I understand that Judge's dockets can be busy and it might be taking it too far to statutorily set a timeline on hearing dates.

My 2 cents.

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.

On Thursday, December 12, 2013 2:11 PM, "rick.eckhard@hklaw.commailto:rick.eckhard@hklaw.com" <rick.eckhard@hklaw.commailto:rick.eckhard@hklaw.com> wrote:
Good afternoon, fellow L/T Committee members,

Conrad Kahn, in his trailing email, suggests that the committee consider proposing an amendment to Florida Statutes § 83.60.  As chair of the legislative subcommittee, I'd like to get a feel for committee member support for Conrad's suggestion.  I'd also like to hear from those willing to work on this matter.  Thank you, Rick
Richard Eckhard | Holland & Knight
Equity Partner
100 North Tampa Street, Suite 4100 | Tampa FL 33602
Phone 813.227.6417 | Fax 813.229.0134
rick.eckhard@hklaw.commailto:rick.eckhard@hklaw.com | www.hklaw.comhttp://www.hklaw.com/

Add to address bookhttp://www.hklaw.com/vcard.aspx?user=Reckhard | View professional biographyhttp://www.hklaw.com/id77/biosReckhard

From: Conrad Kahn [mailto:conradkahn@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 11:53 AM
To: Lloyd Granet; safrank@arnstein.commailto:safrank@arnstein.com
Subject: N-1003 - Landlord Tenant Committee: Legislative Proposal - Landlord Tenant Committee - Evictions

Lloyd & Scott,

I’m a member of the Landlord/Tenant committee for the RPPTL section of the bar.  I have an idea for a legislative proposal regarding evictions and I’d like to share my idea with you and, if possible, receive some feedback if you think it is feasible or an idea worth exploring.

In my practice, I deal with evictions often.  Often, a tenant files a “Motion to Determine Rent” under Florida Statutes § 83.60 merely as a delay tactic.  The hearing proceeds, and even when the tenant admits the amount of rent at the hearing, the judge nonetheless allows the tenant further time from the date of the hearing to deposit the rent into the Court.

This whole charade by tenants circumvents the purpose of the relevant statutes in affording Landlords a quick eviction remedy.

My proposal is as follows:  If a tenant wishes to file a “Motion to Determine Rent,” the Tenant must also file a verified affidavit stating what the tenant believes the rent should be, deposit that amount into the Court with the filing of the motion, and state the grounds for why the rent should be lower than the amount alleged in the complaint.  In addition, based on the verified affidavit and motion, the Judge should be permitted to make a determination ex-parte, in Chambers without a hearing.

I truly believe this process would help ameliorate the problem of landlords face when tenants filed unwarranted “Motions to Determine Rent.”

What do you think?

Conrad Kahn Esq.
Conrad Kahn P.L.
FBN. 104456
P.O. Box 41-4213
Miami Beach, FL 33141
T.  (305) 865-0865
F.  (305) 200-0139
Email:  ConradKahn@gmail.commailto:ConradKahn@gmail.com

PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIAL NOTICE:  This e-mail is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521 and is legally privileged.  The contents of this e-mail message and any attachments are intended solely for the party or parties addressed and named in this message.  This communication and all attachments, if any, are intended to be and to remain confidential, and it may be subject to the applicable attorney-client and or work product privileges.  If you are not the intended recipient of this message, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this message and its attachments.  Do not deliver, distribute, or copy this message and or any attachments if you are not the intended recipient.  Do not disclose the contents or take any action in reliance upon the information contained in this communication or any attachments.  Although this e-mail and any attachments are believed to be free of any virus or other defect that might affect any computer into which it is received and opened, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that it is virus free and no responsibility is accepted by Conrad Kahn P.L. for damage arising in any way from its use.

IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS IMPOSED BY THE IRS, WE INFORM YOU THAT ANY TAX ADVICE CONTAINED IN THIS COMMUNICATION (INCLUDING ANY ATTACHMENTS) IS NOT INTENDED OR WRITTEN BY HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP TO BE USED, AND CANNOT BE USED, FOR THE PURPOSE OF (I) AVOIDING TAX-RELATED PENALTIES UNDER THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, OR (II) PROMOTING, MARKETING, OR RECOMMENDING TO ANOTHER PARTY ANY TAX-RELATED MATTER HEREIN.

NOTE: This e-mail is from a law firm, Holland & Knight LLP (“H&K”), and is intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. If you believe you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately, delete the e-mail from your computer and do not copy or disclose it to anyone else. If you are not an existing client of H&K, do not construe anything in this e-mail to make you a client unless it contains a specific statement to that effect and do not disclose anything to H&K in reply that you expect it to hold in confidence. If you properly received this e-mail as a client, co-counsel or retained expert of H&K, you should maintain its contents in confidence in order to preserve the attorney-client or work product privilege that may be available to protect confidentiality.

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

Hi All,

I don’t think it will do any good. The judges do what they want.  The law is
pretty clear right now and the judges still set the cases for hearings.  We
deal with thousands of these cases a year, we file thousands of motions for
the default and we find that judges who set hearings fully know the law. I
personally don’t feel it will change the way these judges handle the cases.
If the procedure in a proposed bill is looked upon as burdensome or
complicated for the tenant, it will be fought vigorously by the attorneys
who represent tenants OR the bill will get amended and you have a whole new
fight and complication on your hands.

For the most part, unless a judge is brand new on the bench, the tenant
usually is required to place the money into the registry the same day or in
a few days. I don’t see the problem Carey is referring to much.  They almost
always do not post the rent so they get a few more free days.

In order to get the LL/TEN Act changed, unless you have a completely
technical unopposed change or have a legislator who is hard core into
getting their bill passed as we did last year with Stargel's bill, without
the lobbyists from FAR and the Florida Bar pushing the bill all I can say is
good luck. Legal Services will oppose it and it will become quite a fight. I
have spent thousands of volunteer hours doing all of this on behalf of the
Florida Apartment Association and have fought, helped write, rewrite, get
passed or amended almost all of the changes to the LL/TEN Act in the last 20
years and all I can say is that I can’t do it anymore. 20 years was enough.
This was all in concert with the lobbyist Ron Book who was paid for this and
he worked extremely hard fighting the battles that ensued. I don’t see the
Bar or FAR doing this and taking up what will become a battle.

Just a thought for the day!

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
rick.eckhard@hklaw.com
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 2:11 PM
To: landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: [RPPTL LandTen] FW: N-1003 - Landlord Tenant Committee: Legislative
Proposal - Landlord Tenant Committee - Evictions

Good afternoon, fellow L/T Committee members,

Conrad Kahn, in his trailing email, suggests that the committee consider
proposing an amendment to Florida Statutes § 83.60.  As chair of the
legislative subcommittee, I'd like to get a feel for committee member
support for Conrad's suggestion.  I'd also like to hear from those willing
to work on this matter.  Thank you, Rick

Richard Eckhard | Holland & Knight

Equity Partner

100 North Tampa Street, Suite 4100 | Tampa FL 33602

Phone 813.227.6417 | Fax 813.229.0134

mailto:rick.eckhard@hklaw.com rick.eckhard@hklaw.com |
http://www.hklaw.com/ www.hklaw.com

http://www.hklaw.com/vcard.aspx?user=Reckhard Add to address book |
http://www.hklaw.com/id77/biosReckhard View professional biography

From: Conrad Kahn [mailto:conradkahn@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 11:53 AM
To: Lloyd Granet; safrank@arnstein.com
Subject: N-1003 - Landlord Tenant Committee: Legislative Proposal - Landlord
Tenant Committee - Evictions

Lloyd & Scott,

I’m a member of the Landlord/Tenant committee for the RPPTL section of the
bar.  I have an idea for a legislative proposal regarding evictions and I’d
like to share my idea with you and, if possible, receive some feedback if
you think it is feasible or an idea worth exploring.

In my practice, I deal with evictions often.  Often, a tenant files a
“Motion to Determine Rent” under Florida Statutes § 83.60 merely as a delay
tactic.  The hearing proceeds, and even when the tenant admits the amount of
rent at the hearing, the judge nonetheless allows the tenant further time
from the date of the hearing to deposit the rent into the Court.

This whole charade by tenants circumvents the purpose of the relevant
statutes in affording Landlords a quick eviction remedy.

My proposal is as follows:  If a tenant wishes to file a “Motion to
Determine Rent,” the Tenant must also file a verified affidavit stating what
the tenant believes the rent should be, deposit that amount into the Court
with the filing of the motion, and state the grounds for why the rent should
be lower than the amount alleged in the complaint.  In addition, based on
the verified affidavit and motion, the Judge should be permitted to make a
determination ex-parte, in Chambers without a hearing.

I truly believe this process would help ameliorate the problem of landlords
face when tenants filed unwarranted “Motions to Determine Rent.”

What do you think?

Conrad Kahn Esq.

Conrad Kahn P.L.

FBN. 104456

P.O. Box 41-4213

Miami Beach, FL 33141

T.  (305) 865-0865

F.  (305) 200-0139

Email:  ConradKahn@gmail.com

PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIAL NOTICE:  This e-mail is covered by the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521 and is legally privileged.
The contents of this e-mail message and any attachments are intended solely
for the party or parties addressed and named in this message.  This
communication and all attachments, if any, are intended to be and to remain
confidential, and it may be subject to the applicable attorney-client and or
work product privileges.  If you are not the intended recipient of this
message, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please
immediately alert the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this message
and its attachments.  Do not deliver, distribute, or copy this message and
or any attachments if you are not the intended recipient.  Do not disclose
the contents or take any action in reliance upon the information contained
in this communication or any attachments.  Although this e-mail and any
attachments are believed to be free of any virus or other defect that might
affect any computer into which it is received and opened, it is the
responsibility of the recipient to ensure that it is virus free and no
responsibility is accepted by Conrad Kahn P.L. for damage arising in any way
from its use.

IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS
IMPOSED BY THE IRS, WE INFORM YOU THAT ANY TAX ADVICE CONTAINED IN THIS
COMMUNICATION (INCLUDING ANY ATTACHMENTS) IS NOT INTENDED OR WRITTEN BY
HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP TO BE USED, AND CANNOT BE USED, FOR THE PURPOSE OF (I)
AVOIDING TAX-RELATED PENALTIES UNDER THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, OR (II)
PROMOTING, MARKETING, OR RECOMMENDING TO ANOTHER PARTY ANY TAX-RELATED
MATTER HEREIN.

NOTE: This e-mail is from a law firm, Holland & Knight LLP (“H&K”), and is
intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. If
you believe you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender
immediately, delete the e-mail from your computer and do not copy or
disclose it to anyone else. If you are not an existing client of H&K, do not
construe anything in this e-mail to make you a client unless it contains a
specific statement to that effect and do not disclose anything to H&K in
reply that you expect it to hold in confidence. If you properly received
this e-mail as a client, co-counsel or retained expert of H&K, you should
maintain its contents in confidence in order to preserve the attorney-client
or work product privilege that may be available to protect confidentiality.