Empathy List Archives

LO

Law Offices of Scott A. Frank

Fri, Aug 17, 2012 6:35 PM

Residential lease.

Post-expiration, but less than 30 days out, landlord sends a letter to
tenant stating only (i) the name of the tenant, (ii) a laundry list of items
that need repair, (iii) a total of the claimed damage (no cost itemization
for the 30 - yes, 30 - items listed), and (iv) a summation that lists the
security deposit as a reduction of the amount due to show a balance, and
(iv) a demand for the balance.

Nothing even remotely resembling the required language found in 83.49.

PS - landlord's claims are mostly absurd.

Timing is as follows: lease expired on 7/31. Notice received by tenant
today (8/17)

So the question is: (i) does tenant respond to the claims themselves, thus
waiving the argument that the notice was not sufficient under the statute;
(ii) respond that the notice does not comply with the statute without
addressing the claims themselves, thus giving the landlord a second bite of
the apple by resending the notice (in correct form) within the thirty days,
(iii) respond to all claims, and claim that the notice is deficient so that
the tenant is entitled to receive the full deposit (also gives a possible
second bite of the apple), or (iv) on August 31, 2012, deliver either
response (ii) or (iii) thereby eliminating landlord's ability to resend the
notice in time.

Your thoughts?

Thanks.

Scott A. Frank

Attorney at Law

Please note our new address and phone number:

LAW OFFICES OF SCOTT A. FRANK, P.A.

5301 N. Federal Highway, Suite 170

Boca Raton, FL 33487

p: (561) 826-5400

f: (561) 423-5721

mailto:sfrank@saflaw.com sfrank@saflaw.com

http://www.saflaw.com/ www.saflaw.com

If you believe that you have received this message in error, please notify
the sender by reply transmission and delete the message without copying or
disclosing it.

Pursuant to Internal Revenue Service guidance, be advised that any federal
tax advice contained in this written or electronic communication, including
any attachments or enclosures, is not intended or written to be used and it
cannot be used by any person or entity for the purpose of (i) avoiding any
tax penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service or any
other U.S. Federal taxing authority or agency or (ii) promoting, marketing
or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.

Residential lease. Post-expiration, but less than 30 days out, landlord sends a letter to tenant stating only (i) the name of the tenant, (ii) a laundry list of items that need repair, (iii) a total of the claimed damage (no cost itemization for the 30 - yes, 30 - items listed), and (iv) a summation that lists the security deposit as a reduction of the amount due to show a balance, and (iv) a demand for the balance. Nothing even remotely resembling the required language found in 83.49. PS - landlord's claims are mostly absurd. Timing is as follows: lease expired on 7/31. Notice received by tenant today (8/17) So the question is: (i) does tenant respond to the claims themselves, thus waiving the argument that the notice was not sufficient under the statute; (ii) respond that the notice does not comply with the statute without addressing the claims themselves, thus giving the landlord a second bite of the apple by resending the notice (in correct form) within the thirty days, (iii) respond to all claims, and claim that the notice is deficient so that the tenant is entitled to receive the full deposit (also gives a possible second bite of the apple), or (iv) on August 31, 2012, deliver either response (ii) or (iii) thereby eliminating landlord's ability to resend the notice in time. Your thoughts? Thanks. Scott A. Frank Attorney at Law Please note our new address and phone number: LAW OFFICES OF SCOTT A. FRANK, P.A. 5301 N. Federal Highway, Suite 170 Boca Raton, FL 33487 p: (561) 826-5400 f: (561) 423-5721 <mailto:sfrank@saflaw.com> sfrank@saflaw.com <http://www.saflaw.com/> www.saflaw.com If you believe that you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by reply transmission and delete the message without copying or disclosing it. Pursuant to Internal Revenue Service guidance, be advised that any federal tax advice contained in this written or electronic communication, including any attachments or enclosures, is not intended or written to be used and it cannot be used by any person or entity for the purpose of (i) avoiding any tax penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service or any other U.S. Federal taxing authority or agency or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.

DW

David Weisman

Fri, Aug 17, 2012 6:47 PM

I would reply and object to the landlord's claim tracking the language of 3 b of the statute. I do not think that the objection needs to be specific, but a failure to object will permit the Landlord to keep the deposit. If the landlord wakes up and send a new notice, the tenant can re-object. Otherwise, tenant should be able to recover the deposit plus fees.

David Weisman
Board Certified Real Estate Lawyer
Greenspoon Marder, P.A.
Trade Center South, Suite 700
100 West Cypress Creek Road
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33309
Phone 954-491-1120
Toll Free 888-491-1120
Direct Phone 954-343-6941
Direct Fax 954-343-6942

[cid:image001.jpg@01CD7C87.287FB660]

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Law Offices of Scott A. Frank
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 2:35 PM
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Subject: [RPPTL LandTen] Silly practice question

Residential lease.

Post-expiration, but less than 30 days out, landlord sends a letter to tenant stating only (i) the name of the tenant, (ii) a laundry list of items that need repair, (iii) a total of the claimed damage (no cost itemization for the 30 - yes, 30 - items listed), and (iv) a summation that lists the security deposit as a reduction of the amount due to show a balance, and (iv) a demand for the balance.

Nothing even remotely resembling the required language found in 83.49.

PS - landlord's claims are mostly absurd.

Timing is as follows: lease expired on 7/31. Notice received by tenant today (8/17)

So the question is: (i) does tenant respond to the claims themselves, thus waiving the argument that the notice was not sufficient under the statute; (ii) respond that the notice does not comply with the statute without addressing the claims themselves, thus giving the landlord a second bite of the apple by resending the notice (in correct form) within the thirty days, (iii) respond to all claims, and claim that the notice is deficient so that the tenant is entitled to receive the full deposit (also gives a possible second bite of the apple), or (iv) on August 31, 2012, deliver either response (ii) or (iii) thereby eliminating landlord's ability to resend the notice in time.

Your thoughts?

Thanks.

Scott A. Frank
Attorney at Law

Please note our new address and phone number:

LAW OFFICES OF SCOTT A. FRANK, P.A.
5301 N. Federal Highway, Suite 170
Boca Raton, FL 33487
p: (561) 826-5400
f: (561) 423-5721
sfrank@saflaw.com mailto:sfrank@saflaw.com
www.saflaw.com http://www.saflaw.com/

If you believe that you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by reply transmission and delete the message without copying or disclosing it.

Pursuant to Internal Revenue Service guidance, be advised that any federal tax advice contained in this written or electronic communication, including any attachments or enclosures, is not intended or written to be used and it cannot be used by any person or entity for the purpose of (i) avoiding any tax penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service or any other U.S. Federal taxing authority or agency or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.

The information contained in this transmission may be attorney/client privileged and confidential. It is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by reply e-mail.

Pursuant to Internal Revenue Service guidance, be advised that any federal tax advice contained in this written or electronic communication, including any attachments or enclosures, is not intended or written to be used and it
cannot be used by any person or entity for the purpose of (i) avoiding any tax penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service or any other U.S. Federal taxing authority or agency or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.

A portion of our practice involves the collection of debt and any information you provide will be used for that purpose if we are attempting to collect a debt from you.

I would reply and object to the landlord's claim tracking the language of 3 b of the statute. I do not think that the objection needs to be specific, but a failure to object will permit the Landlord to keep the deposit. If the landlord wakes up and send a new notice, the tenant can re-object. Otherwise, tenant should be able to recover the deposit plus fees. David Weisman Board Certified Real Estate Lawyer Greenspoon Marder, P.A. Trade Center South, Suite 700 100 West Cypress Creek Road Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33309 Phone 954-491-1120 Toll Free 888-491-1120 Direct Phone 954-343-6941 Direct Fax 954-343-6942 [cid:image001.jpg@01CD7C87.287FB660] From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Law Offices of Scott A. Frank Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 2:35 PM To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee Subject: [RPPTL LandTen] Silly practice question Residential lease. Post-expiration, but less than 30 days out, landlord sends a letter to tenant stating only (i) the name of the tenant, (ii) a laundry list of items that need repair, (iii) a total of the claimed damage (no cost itemization for the 30 - yes, 30 - items listed), and (iv) a summation that lists the security deposit as a reduction of the amount due to show a balance, and (iv) a demand for the balance. Nothing even remotely resembling the required language found in 83.49. PS - landlord's claims are mostly absurd. Timing is as follows: lease expired on 7/31. Notice received by tenant today (8/17) So the question is: (i) does tenant respond to the claims themselves, thus waiving the argument that the notice was not sufficient under the statute; (ii) respond that the notice does not comply with the statute without addressing the claims themselves, thus giving the landlord a second bite of the apple by resending the notice (in correct form) within the thirty days, (iii) respond to all claims, and claim that the notice is deficient so that the tenant is entitled to receive the full deposit (also gives a possible second bite of the apple), or (iv) on August 31, 2012, deliver either response (ii) or (iii) thereby eliminating landlord's ability to resend the notice in time. Your thoughts? Thanks. Scott A. Frank Attorney at Law Please note our new address and phone number: LAW OFFICES OF SCOTT A. FRANK, P.A. 5301 N. Federal Highway, Suite 170 Boca Raton, FL 33487 p: (561) 826-5400 f: (561) 423-5721 sfrank@saflaw.com<mailto:sfrank@saflaw.com> www.saflaw.com<http://www.saflaw.com/> If you believe that you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by reply transmission and delete the message without copying or disclosing it. Pursuant to Internal Revenue Service guidance, be advised that any federal tax advice contained in this written or electronic communication, including any attachments or enclosures, is not intended or written to be used and it cannot be used by any person or entity for the purpose of (i) avoiding any tax penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service or any other U.S. Federal taxing authority or agency or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. The information contained in this transmission may be attorney/client privileged and confidential. It is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by reply e-mail. Pursuant to Internal Revenue Service guidance, be advised that any federal tax advice contained in this written or electronic communication, including any attachments or enclosures, is not intended or written to be used and it cannot be used by any person or entity for the purpose of (i) avoiding any tax penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service or any other U.S. Federal taxing authority or agency or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. A portion of our practice involves the collection of debt and any information you provide will be used for that purpose if we are attempting to collect a debt from you.

HH

Harry Heist

Fri, Aug 17, 2012 6:53 PM

If I were the tenant and there were no damages and I could 100% prove that,
(doubtful) I would wait until the 30 days are up, make a written demand for
the return of the deposit and if not returned, sue. The tenant risks 2
things:

a. The judge will not follow the law and offset the deposit with anything
awarded in a counterclaim or

b. The tenant will have to deal with the counterclaim.

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 Law Offices of
Scott A. Frank
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 2:35 PM
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Subject: [RPPTL LandTen] Silly practice question

Residential lease.

Post-expiration, but less than 30 days out, landlord sends a letter to
tenant stating only (i) the name of the tenant, (ii) a laundry list of items
that need repair, (iii) a total of the claimed damage (no cost itemization
for the 30 - yes, 30 - items listed), and (iv) a summation that lists the
security deposit as a reduction of the amount due to show a balance, and
(iv) a demand for the balance.

Nothing even remotely resembling the required language found in 83.49.

PS - landlord's claims are mostly absurd.

Timing is as follows: lease expired on 7/31. Notice received by tenant
today (8/17)

So the question is: (i) does tenant respond to the claims themselves, thus
waiving the argument that the notice was not sufficient under the statute;
(ii) respond that the notice does not comply with the statute without
addressing the claims themselves, thus giving the landlord a second bite of
the apple by resending the notice (in correct form) within the thirty days,
(iii) respond to all claims, and claim that the notice is deficient so that
the tenant is entitled to receive the full deposit (also gives a possible
second bite of the apple), or (iv) on August 31, 2012, deliver either
response (ii) or (iii) thereby eliminating landlord's ability to resend the
notice in time.

Your thoughts?

Thanks.

Scott A. Frank

Attorney at Law

Please note our new address and phone number:

LAW OFFICES OF SCOTT A. FRANK, P.A.

5301 N. Federal Highway, Suite 170

Boca Raton, FL 33487

p: (561) 826-5400

f: (561) 423-5721

sfrank@saflaw.com

www.saflaw.com http://www.saflaw.com/

If you believe that you have received this message in error, please notify
the sender by reply transmission and delete the message without copying or
disclosing it.

Pursuant to Internal Revenue Service guidance, be advised that any federal
tax advice contained in this written or electronic communication, including
any attachments or enclosures, is not intended or written to be used and it
cannot be used by any person or entity for the purpose of (i) avoiding any
tax penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service or any
other U.S. Federal taxing authority or agency or (ii) promoting, marketing
or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.

If I were the tenant and there were no damages and I could 100% prove that, (doubtful) I would wait until the 30 days are up, make a written demand for the return of the deposit and if not returned, sue. The tenant risks 2 things: a. The judge will not follow the law and offset the deposit with anything awarded in a counterclaim or b. The tenant will have to deal with the counterclaim. 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 Law Offices of Scott A. Frank Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 2:35 PM To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee Subject: [RPPTL LandTen] Silly practice question Residential lease. Post-expiration, but less than 30 days out, landlord sends a letter to tenant stating only (i) the name of the tenant, (ii) a laundry list of items that need repair, (iii) a total of the claimed damage (no cost itemization for the 30 - yes, 30 - items listed), and (iv) a summation that lists the security deposit as a reduction of the amount due to show a balance, and (iv) a demand for the balance. Nothing even remotely resembling the required language found in 83.49. PS - landlord's claims are mostly absurd. Timing is as follows: lease expired on 7/31. Notice received by tenant today (8/17) So the question is: (i) does tenant respond to the claims themselves, thus waiving the argument that the notice was not sufficient under the statute; (ii) respond that the notice does not comply with the statute without addressing the claims themselves, thus giving the landlord a second bite of the apple by resending the notice (in correct form) within the thirty days, (iii) respond to all claims, and claim that the notice is deficient so that the tenant is entitled to receive the full deposit (also gives a possible second bite of the apple), or (iv) on August 31, 2012, deliver either response (ii) or (iii) thereby eliminating landlord's ability to resend the notice in time. Your thoughts? Thanks. Scott A. Frank Attorney at Law Please note our new address and phone number: LAW OFFICES OF SCOTT A. FRANK, P.A. 5301 N. Federal Highway, Suite 170 Boca Raton, FL 33487 p: (561) 826-5400 f: (561) 423-5721 sfrank@saflaw.com www.saflaw.com <http://www.saflaw.com/> If you believe that you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by reply transmission and delete the message without copying or disclosing it. Pursuant to Internal Revenue Service guidance, be advised that any federal tax advice contained in this written or electronic communication, including any attachments or enclosures, is not intended or written to be used and it cannot be used by any person or entity for the purpose of (i) avoiding any tax penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service or any other U.S. Federal taxing authority or agency or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.

ML

Martin Lawyer

Fri, Aug 17, 2012 7:06 PM

Harry,

You could be a tenant's lawyer !

We'd counsel the Bre'r Fox "lay low" strategy as you outline. (See, Uncle
Remus, "The Wonderful Tar Baby Story".)

Marty

C. Martin (Marty) Lawyer, III

Florida Bar # 128095

BAY AREA LEGAL SERVICES, INC.

829 West M. L. King Blvd., Suite # 200

Tampa, FL 33603-3336

(813) 232-1222, Ext. 109

FAX: 232-1403

PRESERVING INDEPENDENCE, HOPE, AND DIGNITY

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org
[mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Harry Heist
Sent: Friday, 17 August 2012 14:54
To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee'
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Silly practice question

If I were the tenant and there were no damages and I could 100% prove that,
(doubtful) I would wait until the 30 days are up, make a written demand for
the return of the deposit and if not returned, sue. The tenant risks 2
things:

a. The judge will not follow the law and offset the deposit with anything
awarded in a counterclaim or

b. The tenant will have to deal with the counterclaim.

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 Law Offices of
Scott A. Frank
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 2:35 PM
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Subject: [RPPTL LandTen] Silly practice question

Residential lease.

Post-expiration, but less than 30 days out, landlord sends a letter to
tenant stating only (i) the name of the tenant, (ii) a laundry list of items
that need repair, (iii) a total of the claimed damage (no cost itemization
for the 30 - yes, 30 - items listed), and (iv) a summation that lists the
security deposit as a reduction of the amount due to show a balance, and
(iv) a demand for the balance.

Nothing even remotely resembling the required language found in 83.49.

PS - landlord's claims are mostly absurd.

Timing is as follows: lease expired on 7/31. Notice received by tenant
today (8/17)

So the question is: (i) does tenant respond to the claims themselves, thus
waiving the argument that the notice was not sufficient under the statute;
(ii) respond that the notice does not comply with the statute without
addressing the claims themselves, thus giving the landlord a second bite of
the apple by resending the notice (in correct form) within the thirty days,
(iii) respond to all claims, and claim that the notice is deficient so that
the tenant is entitled to receive the full deposit (also gives a possible
second bite of the apple), or (iv) on August 31, 2012, deliver either
response (ii) or (iii) thereby eliminating landlord's ability to resend the
notice in time.

Your thoughts?

Thanks.

Scott A. Frank

Attorney at Law

Please note our new address and phone number:

LAW OFFICES OF SCOTT A. FRANK, P.A.

5301 N. Federal Highway, Suite 170

Boca Raton, FL 33487

p: (561) 826-5400

f: (561) 423-5721

sfrank@saflaw.com

www.saflaw.com http://www.saflaw.com/

If you believe that you have received this message in error, please notify
the sender by reply transmission and delete the message without copying or
disclosing it.

Pursuant to Internal Revenue Service guidance, be advised that any federal
tax advice contained in this written or electronic communication, including
any attachments or enclosures, is not intended or written to be used and it
cannot be used by any person or entity for the purpose of (i) avoiding any
tax penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service or any
other U.S. Federal taxing authority or agency or (ii) promoting, marketing
or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.

Harry, You could be a tenant's lawyer ! We'd counsel the Bre'r Fox "lay low" strategy as you outline. (See, Uncle Remus, "The Wonderful Tar Baby Story".) Marty C. Martin (Marty) Lawyer, III Florida Bar # 128095 BAY AREA LEGAL SERVICES, INC. 829 West M. L. King Blvd., Suite # 200 Tampa, FL 33603-3336 (813) 232-1222, Ext. 109 FAX: 232-1403 PRESERVING INDEPENDENCE, HOPE, AND DIGNITY _____ From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Harry Heist Sent: Friday, 17 August 2012 14:54 To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee' Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Silly practice question If I were the tenant and there were no damages and I could 100% prove that, (doubtful) I would wait until the 30 days are up, make a written demand for the return of the deposit and if not returned, sue. The tenant risks 2 things: a. The judge will not follow the law and offset the deposit with anything awarded in a counterclaim or b. The tenant will have to deal with the counterclaim. 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 Law Offices of Scott A. Frank Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 2:35 PM To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee Subject: [RPPTL LandTen] Silly practice question Residential lease. Post-expiration, but less than 30 days out, landlord sends a letter to tenant stating only (i) the name of the tenant, (ii) a laundry list of items that need repair, (iii) a total of the claimed damage (no cost itemization for the 30 - yes, 30 - items listed), and (iv) a summation that lists the security deposit as a reduction of the amount due to show a balance, and (iv) a demand for the balance. Nothing even remotely resembling the required language found in 83.49. PS - landlord's claims are mostly absurd. Timing is as follows: lease expired on 7/31. Notice received by tenant today (8/17) So the question is: (i) does tenant respond to the claims themselves, thus waiving the argument that the notice was not sufficient under the statute; (ii) respond that the notice does not comply with the statute without addressing the claims themselves, thus giving the landlord a second bite of the apple by resending the notice (in correct form) within the thirty days, (iii) respond to all claims, and claim that the notice is deficient so that the tenant is entitled to receive the full deposit (also gives a possible second bite of the apple), or (iv) on August 31, 2012, deliver either response (ii) or (iii) thereby eliminating landlord's ability to resend the notice in time. Your thoughts? Thanks. Scott A. Frank Attorney at Law Please note our new address and phone number: LAW OFFICES OF SCOTT A. FRANK, P.A. 5301 N. Federal Highway, Suite 170 Boca Raton, FL 33487 p: (561) 826-5400 f: (561) 423-5721 sfrank@saflaw.com www.saflaw.com <http://www.saflaw.com/> If you believe that you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by reply transmission and delete the message without copying or disclosing it. Pursuant to Internal Revenue Service guidance, be advised that any federal tax advice contained in this written or electronic communication, including any attachments or enclosures, is not intended or written to be used and it cannot be used by any person or entity for the purpose of (i) avoiding any tax penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service or any other U.S. Federal taxing authority or agency or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.

LO

Law Offices of Scott A. Frank

Fri, Aug 17, 2012 7:15 PM

I do agree that it is never worth it to risk what a County Court Judge may
do.

So I believe my strategy will be to wait until the 31st (14 days after
receipt of landlord's claim, but more than 30 days after lease expiration),
and then issue a reply (i) rebutting each item, and (ii) demanding an
instant return of the entire deposit due to landlord's failure to comply.

Thanks all.

Scott A. Frank

Attorney at Law

Please note our new address and phone number:

LAW OFFICES OF SCOTT A. FRANK, P.A.

5301 N. Federal Highway, Suite 170

Boca Raton, FL 33487

p: (561) 826-5400

f: (561) 423-5721

sfrank@saflaw.com

www.saflaw.com http://www.saflaw.com/

If you believe that you have received this message in error, please notify
the sender by reply transmission and delete the message without copying or
disclosing it.

Pursuant to Internal Revenue Service guidance, be advised that any federal
tax advice contained in this written or electronic communication, including
any attachments or enclosures, is not intended or written to be used and it
cannot be used by any person or entity for the purpose of (i) avoiding any
tax penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service or any
other U.S. Federal taxing authority or agency or (ii) promoting, marketing
or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org
[mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Martin Lawyer
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 3:07 PM
To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee'
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Silly practice question

Harry,

You could be a tenant's lawyer !

We'd counsel the Bre'r Fox "lay low" strategy as you outline. (See, Uncle
Remus, "The Wonderful Tar Baby Story".)

Marty

C. Martin (Marty) Lawyer, III

Florida Bar # 128095

BAY AREA LEGAL SERVICES, INC.

829 West M. L. King Blvd., Suite # 200

Tampa, FL 33603-3336

(813) 232-1222, Ext. 109

FAX: 232-1403

PRESERVING INDEPENDENCE, HOPE, AND DIGNITY

From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org
[mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Harry Heist
Sent: Friday, 17 August 2012 14:54
To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee'
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Silly practice question

If I were the tenant and there were no damages and I could 100% prove that,
(doubtful) I would wait until the 30 days are up, make a written demand for
the return of the deposit and if not returned, sue. The tenant risks 2
things:

a. The judge will not follow the law and offset the deposit with anything
awarded in a counterclaim or

b. The tenant will have to deal with the counterclaim.

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 Law Offices of
Scott A. Frank
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 2:35 PM
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Subject: [RPPTL LandTen] Silly practice question

Residential lease.

Post-expiration, but less than 30 days out, landlord sends a letter to
tenant stating only (i) the name of the tenant, (ii) a laundry list of items
that need repair, (iii) a total of the claimed damage (no cost itemization
for the 30 - yes, 30 - items listed), and (iv) a summation that lists the
security deposit as a reduction of the amount due to show a balance, and
(iv) a demand for the balance.

Nothing even remotely resembling the required language found in 83.49.

PS - landlord's claims are mostly absurd.

Timing is as follows: lease expired on 7/31. Notice received by tenant
today (8/17)

So the question is: (i) does tenant respond to the claims themselves, thus
waiving the argument that the notice was not sufficient under the statute;
(ii) respond that the notice does not comply with the statute without
addressing the claims themselves, thus giving the landlord a second bite of
the apple by resending the notice (in correct form) within the thirty days,
(iii) respond to all claims, and claim that the notice is deficient so that
the tenant is entitled to receive the full deposit (also gives a possible
second bite of the apple), or (iv) on August 31, 2012, deliver either
response (ii) or (iii) thereby eliminating landlord's ability to resend the
notice in time.

Your thoughts?

Thanks.

Scott A. Frank

Attorney at Law

Please note our new address and phone number:

LAW OFFICES OF SCOTT A. FRANK, P.A.

5301 N. Federal Highway, Suite 170

Boca Raton, FL 33487

p: (561) 826-5400

f: (561) 423-5721

sfrank@saflaw.com

www.saflaw.com http://www.saflaw.com/

If you believe that you have received this message in error, please notify
the sender by reply transmission and delete the message without copying or
disclosing it.

Pursuant to Internal Revenue Service guidance, be advised that any federal
tax advice contained in this written or electronic communication, including
any attachments or enclosures, is not intended or written to be used and it
cannot be used by any person or entity for the purpose of (i) avoiding any
tax penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service or any
other U.S. Federal taxing authority or agency or (ii) promoting, marketing
or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.

I do agree that it is never worth it to risk what a County Court Judge may do. So I believe my strategy will be to wait until the 31st (14 days after receipt of landlord's claim, but more than 30 days after lease expiration), and then issue a reply (i) rebutting each item, and (ii) demanding an instant return of the entire deposit due to landlord's failure to comply. Thanks all. Scott A. Frank Attorney at Law Please note our new address and phone number: LAW OFFICES OF SCOTT A. FRANK, P.A. 5301 N. Federal Highway, Suite 170 Boca Raton, FL 33487 p: (561) 826-5400 f: (561) 423-5721 sfrank@saflaw.com www.saflaw.com <http://www.saflaw.com/> If you believe that you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by reply transmission and delete the message without copying or disclosing it. Pursuant to Internal Revenue Service guidance, be advised that any federal tax advice contained in this written or electronic communication, including any attachments or enclosures, is not intended or written to be used and it cannot be used by any person or entity for the purpose of (i) avoiding any tax penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service or any other U.S. Federal taxing authority or agency or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Martin Lawyer Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 3:07 PM To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee' Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Silly practice question Harry, You could be a tenant's lawyer ! We'd counsel the Bre'r Fox "lay low" strategy as you outline. (See, Uncle Remus, "The Wonderful Tar Baby Story".) Marty C. Martin (Marty) Lawyer, III Florida Bar # 128095 BAY AREA LEGAL SERVICES, INC. 829 West M. L. King Blvd., Suite # 200 Tampa, FL 33603-3336 (813) 232-1222, Ext. 109 FAX: 232-1403 PRESERVING INDEPENDENCE, HOPE, AND DIGNITY _____ From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Harry Heist Sent: Friday, 17 August 2012 14:54 To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee' Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Silly practice question If I were the tenant and there were no damages and I could 100% prove that, (doubtful) I would wait until the 30 days are up, make a written demand for the return of the deposit and if not returned, sue. The tenant risks 2 things: a. The judge will not follow the law and offset the deposit with anything awarded in a counterclaim or b. The tenant will have to deal with the counterclaim. 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 Law Offices of Scott A. Frank Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 2:35 PM To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee Subject: [RPPTL LandTen] Silly practice question Residential lease. Post-expiration, but less than 30 days out, landlord sends a letter to tenant stating only (i) the name of the tenant, (ii) a laundry list of items that need repair, (iii) a total of the claimed damage (no cost itemization for the 30 - yes, 30 - items listed), and (iv) a summation that lists the security deposit as a reduction of the amount due to show a balance, and (iv) a demand for the balance. Nothing even remotely resembling the required language found in 83.49. PS - landlord's claims are mostly absurd. Timing is as follows: lease expired on 7/31. Notice received by tenant today (8/17) So the question is: (i) does tenant respond to the claims themselves, thus waiving the argument that the notice was not sufficient under the statute; (ii) respond that the notice does not comply with the statute without addressing the claims themselves, thus giving the landlord a second bite of the apple by resending the notice (in correct form) within the thirty days, (iii) respond to all claims, and claim that the notice is deficient so that the tenant is entitled to receive the full deposit (also gives a possible second bite of the apple), or (iv) on August 31, 2012, deliver either response (ii) or (iii) thereby eliminating landlord's ability to resend the notice in time. Your thoughts? Thanks. Scott A. Frank Attorney at Law Please note our new address and phone number: LAW OFFICES OF SCOTT A. FRANK, P.A. 5301 N. Federal Highway, Suite 170 Boca Raton, FL 33487 p: (561) 826-5400 f: (561) 423-5721 sfrank@saflaw.com www.saflaw.com <http://www.saflaw.com/> If you believe that you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by reply transmission and delete the message without copying or disclosing it. Pursuant to Internal Revenue Service guidance, be advised that any federal tax advice contained in this written or electronic communication, including any attachments or enclosures, is not intended or written to be used and it cannot be used by any person or entity for the purpose of (i) avoiding any tax penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service or any other U.S. Federal taxing authority or agency or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.

CS

Cary Sabol

Sat, Aug 18, 2012 1:21 PM

I agree with Harry. I think this notice provision of the Chapter 83 is as strictly interpreted as all the others and if the L/L did not substantially comply with the language, then the notice is not effective. Of course, as others have noted, you never know whether a CC Judge will follow the law or just say - "well, it's close enough." So I would recommend sending your client's objection just prior to the 15 day required response period, just in case.

Cary
Law Offices of Cary P. Sabol
P.O. Box 15981 | West Palm Beach | Florida | 33416
Phone: (561) 281-2744

IRS Circular 230 Notice: Pursuant to recently enacted U.S. Treasury Department Regulations, we are now required to advise you that, unless otherwise expressly indicated, any federal tax advice expressed above was neither written nor intended by the sender or this firm to be used and cannot be used by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed under U.S. tax law. If any person uses or refers to any such tax advice in promoting, marketing or recommending a partnership or other entity, investment plan or arrangement to any taxpayer, then the advice should be considered to have been written to support the promotion or marketing by a person other than the sender or this firm of that transaction or matter, and such taxpayer should seek advice based on the taxpayer's particular circumstances from an independent tax advisor.
Confidentiality Notice: This electronic mail transmission is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential information belonging to the sender which is protected by the attorney-client privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete the original message. Thank you for your cooperation.

From: Harry Heist harry@evict.com
To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee' landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 2:53 PM
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Silly practice question

If I were the tenant and there were no damages and I could 100% prove that, (doubtful) I would wait until the 30 days are up, make a written demand for the return of the deposit and if not returned, sue. The tenant risks 2 things:

a. The judge will not follow the law and offset the deposit with anything awarded in a counterclaim or
b. The tenant will have to deal with the counterclaim.

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: 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 Law Offices of Scott A. Frank
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 2:35 PM
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Subject: [RPPTL LandTen] Silly practice question

Residential lease.

Post-expiration, but less than 30 days out, landlord sends a letter to tenant stating only (i) the name of the tenant, (ii) a laundry list of items that need repair, (iii) a total of the claimed damage (no cost itemization for the 30 – yes, 30 – items listed), and (iv) a summation that lists the security deposit as a reduction of the amount due to show a balance, and (iv) a demand for the balance.

Nothing even remotely resembling the required language found in 83.49.

PS – landlord’s claims are mostly absurd.

Timing is as follows: lease expired on 7/31. Notice received by tenant today (8/17)

So the question is: (i) does tenant respond to the claims themselves, thus waiving the argument that the notice was not sufficient under the statute; (ii) respond that the notice does not comply with the statute without addressing the claims themselves, thus giving the landlord a second bite of the apple by resending the notice (in correct form) within the thirty days, (iii) respond to all claims, and claim that the notice is deficient so that the tenant is entitled to receive the full deposit (also gives a possible second bite of the apple), or (iv) on August 31, 2012, deliver either response (ii) or (iii) thereby eliminating landlord’s ability to resend the notice in time.

Your thoughts?

Thanks.

Scott A. Frank
Attorney at Law

Please note our new address and phone number:

LAW OFFICES OF SCOTT A. FRANK, P.A.
5301 N. Federal Highway, Suite 170
Boca Raton, FL 33487
p: (561) 826-5400
f: (561) 423-5721
sfrank@saflaw.com
http://www.saflaw.com/

If you believe that you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by reply transmission and delete the message without copying or disclosing it.

Pursuant to Internal Revenue Service guidance, be advised that any federal tax advice contained in this written or electronic communication, including any attachments or enclosures, is not intended or written to be used and it cannot be used by any person or entity for the purpose of (i) avoiding any tax penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service or any other U.S. Federal taxing authority or agency or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.

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

I agree with Harry. I think this notice provision of the Chapter 83 is as strictly interpreted as all the others and if the L/L did not substantially comply with the language, then the notice is not effective. Of course, as others have noted, you never know whether a CC Judge will follow the law or just say - "well, it's close enough." So I would recommend sending your client's objection just prior to the 15 day required response period, just in case. Cary Law Offices of Cary P. Sabol P.O. Box 15981 | West Palm Beach | Florida | 33416 Phone: (561) 281-2744 ________________________________ IRS Circular 230 Notice: Pursuant to recently enacted U.S. Treasury Department Regulations, we are now required to advise you that, unless otherwise expressly indicated, any federal tax advice expressed above was neither written nor intended by the sender or this firm to be used and cannot be used by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed under U.S. tax law. If any person uses or refers to any such tax advice in promoting, marketing or recommending a partnership or other entity, investment plan or arrangement to any taxpayer, then the advice should be considered to have been written to support the promotion or marketing by a person other than the sender or this firm of that transaction or matter, and such taxpayer should seek advice based on the taxpayer's particular circumstances from an independent tax advisor. Confidentiality Notice: This electronic mail transmission is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential information belonging to the sender which is protected by the attorney-client privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete the original message. Thank you for your cooperation. ________________________________ From: Harry Heist <harry@evict.com> To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee' <landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org> Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 2:53 PM Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Silly practice question If I were the tenant and there were no damages and I could 100% prove that, (doubtful) I would wait until the 30 days are up, make a written demand for the return of the deposit and if not returned, sue. The tenant risks 2 things: a. The judge will not follow the law and offset the deposit with anything awarded in a counterclaim or b. The tenant will have to deal with the counterclaim. 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: 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 Law Offices of Scott A. Frank Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 2:35 PM To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee Subject: [RPPTL LandTen] Silly practice question Residential lease. Post-expiration, but less than 30 days out, landlord sends a letter to tenant stating only (i) the name of the tenant, (ii) a laundry list of items that need repair, (iii) a total of the claimed damage (no cost itemization for the 30 – yes, 30 – items listed), and (iv) a summation that lists the security deposit as a reduction of the amount due to show a balance, and (iv) a demand for the balance. Nothing even remotely resembling the required language found in 83.49. PS – landlord’s claims are mostly absurd. Timing is as follows: lease expired on 7/31. Notice received by tenant today (8/17) So the question is: (i) does tenant respond to the claims themselves, thus waiving the argument that the notice was not sufficient under the statute; (ii) respond that the notice does not comply with the statute without addressing the claims themselves, thus giving the landlord a second bite of the apple by resending the notice (in correct form) within the thirty days, (iii) respond to all claims, and claim that the notice is deficient so that the tenant is entitled to receive the full deposit (also gives a possible second bite of the apple), or (iv) on August 31, 2012, deliver either response (ii) or (iii) thereby eliminating landlord’s ability to resend the notice in time. Your thoughts? Thanks. Scott A. Frank Attorney at Law Please note our new address and phone number: LAW OFFICES OF SCOTT A. FRANK, P.A. 5301 N. Federal Highway, Suite 170 Boca Raton, FL 33487 p: (561) 826-5400 f: (561) 423-5721 sfrank@saflaw.com http://www.saflaw.com/ If you believe that you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by reply transmission and delete the message without copying or disclosing it. Pursuant to Internal Revenue Service guidance, be advised that any federal tax advice contained in this written or electronic communication, including any attachments or enclosures, is not intended or written to be used and it cannot be used by any person or entity for the purpose of (i) avoiding any tax penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service or any other U.S. Federal taxing authority or agency or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. _______________________________________________ landten mailing list landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/landten