Re: [RPPTL LandTen] HB 6069
I practice in both residential L/T and foreclosure law. There is no similar requirement in foreclosures. I think the policy reason is that in a foreclosure, the Defendant actually owns the property and often it is their homestead. On the hand, a residential tenancy is rarely longer than 1 year, often they are even only month to month, so it's a transient occupancy. Although based on my experience of watching foreclosure defense attorneys play motion practice for 2-3 years, just to delay the process and ultimately concede to a Judgment, I think there should be a similar requirement in the foreclosure statutes. But that's another discussion for another group.
Cary
Cary P. Sabol, Esq. J.D. (2001), LLM (2009)
Law Offices of Cary P. Sabol
P.O. Box 15981 | West Palm Beach | Florida | 33416
Office: (561) 413-4449
Cell: (561) 281-2744
Fax: (888) 316-2881
BEWARE OF CYBER-CRIME: IF YOU RECEIVE AN E-MAIL OR ANY OTHER COMMUNICATION THAT APPEARS TO BE GENERATED FROM OUR OFFICE THAT CONTAINS NEW, REVISED, OR ALTERED BANK WIRE INSTRUCTIONS, CONSIDER IT SUSPECT AND CALL OUR OFFICE AT A NUMBER YOU TRUST. OUR BANK WIRE INSTRUCTIONS SELDOM CHANGE.
**** PLEASE NOTE: On Closings with a Loan, we require "CLOSING INSTRUCTIONS and LOAN PACKAGES" by NOON the day BEFORE Closing"
CASH TO CLOSE for real estate transactions must be WIRED to our account prior to closing. (SAME DAY WIRE - NO ACH TRANSFERS) Wire instructions will be provided upon request. ACH transfers are NOT SAME DAY wires and cannot be accepted.**
THIS COMMUNICATION MAY BE AN ATTEMPT TO COLLECT A DEBT AS DEFINED BY FLORIDA AND FEDERAL LAW AND ANY INFORMATION OBTAINED WILL BE USED FOR THAT PURPOSE. THIS IS A COMMUNICATION FROM A DEBT COLLECTOR.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
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.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] HB 6069
From: <Eric.Rapkin@akerman.com>
Date: Thu, January 16, 2020 1:51 pm
To: <landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org>#wmQuoteWrapper /* Font Definitions / @font-face {font-family:"Cambria Math"; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
#wmQuoteWrapper @font-face {font-family:"Calibri Light"; panose-1:2 15 3 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
#wmQuoteWrapper @font-face {font-family:Calibri; panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
#wmQuoteWrapper @font-face {font-family:Cambria; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
#wmQuoteWrapper / Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, #wmQuoteWrapper li.MsoNormal, #wmQuoteWrapper div.MsoNormal {margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
#wmQuoteWrapper a:link, #wmQuoteWrapper span.MsoHyperlink {mso-style-priority:99; color:#0563C1; text-decoration:underline;}
#wmQuoteWrapper a:visited, #wmQuoteWrapper span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {mso-style-priority:99; color:#954F72; text-decoration:underline;}
#wmQuoteWrapper p.msonormal0, #wmQuoteWrapper li.msonormal0, #wmQuoteWrapper div.msonormal0 {mso-style-name:msonormal; mso-margin-top-alt:auto; margin-right:0in; mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; margin-left:0in; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
#wmQuoteWrapper span.EmailStyle18 {mso-style-type:personal; font-family:"Arial",sans-serif; color:#002060;}
#wmQuoteWrapper span.EmailStyle19 {mso-style-type:personal-reply; font-family:"Arial",sans-serif; color:windowtext; font-weight:normal; font-style:normal;}
#wmQuoteWrapper .MsoChpDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; font-size:10.0pt;}
#wmQuoteWrapper @page WordSection1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
#wmQuoteWrapper div.WordSection1 {page:WordSection1;}I don't do eviction or foreclosure work and so I don't really know the process, but have a question for the group. I recall when this was added to the landlord–tenant statute, it was a great benefit to landlords because if the tenant doesn't post in the rent in the registry, it's an immediate judgment. Is there anything comparable like that in the mortgage foreclosure world? I know from the recession that defaulted mortgage borrowers would raise defenses and keep the foreclosure going as long as possible while continuing to live in the house for free (no mortgage payment, no property taxes, no homeowner insurance, no association dues, etc.). If there isn't something comparable in the foreclosure world, I'm wondering what the difference is between a landlord trying to take back the leased premises from a tenant that didn't pay the rent and a lender trying to take back the mortgaged property from a borrower that didn't pay the mortgage. Maybe there's a philosophical difference/public policy notion that ownership of a home or other property is more sacred than simply renting. Or maybe the apartment owners have a better lobby.
Just curious.
Eric D. Rapkin
Chair, Real Estate Practice Group
Akerman LLP | 350 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1600 | Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
D: 954 759 8962 | T: 954 463 2700 | C: 305 343 6129 | F: 954 847 5350
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: The information contained in this transmission may be privileged and confidential, and 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 transmission in error, please immediately reply to the sender that you have received this communication in error and then delete it. Thank you.
From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org <landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org> On Behalf Of Kristopher Fernandez
Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2020 1:42 PM
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee <landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org>
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] HB 6069I am strongly against it the change. Without the “default” language, a tenant can plead any defense the wants to plead, valid or not. The result is to delay the landlord from quickly regaining possession of its property. It will also increase the landlord’s attorney fees if I now have to have an evidentiary hearing to overcome the tenant’s defenses and obtain an eviction judgment.
. Do you know who is proposing the change and why?
Kristopher E. Fernandez, Esquire
Florida Bar Board Certified Real Estate Attorney
114 S. Fremont Avenue
Tampa, FL 33606
(813) 832-6340
(813) 601-3257 (after hours)
(813) 251-0438 (fax)
NOTICE: This email (including any attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections 2510-2521, is confidential and legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any retention, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. Please reply to the sender that you received the message in error and then delete it. Thank you.
From: landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org <landten-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org> On Behalf Of Brenda Ezell
Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2020 1:29 PM
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee <landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org>
Subject: [RPPTL LandTen] HB 6069Good afternoon. Attached for your consideration and comment is HB 6069 which was just introduced this week. This bill seriously impacts how evictions will proceed so I thought it would be a good idea to get comments from all of you who practice in this area in advance of the Section taking a position on this.
Thank you.
Brenda
Best regards,
Brenda B. Ezell, B.C.S.
3560 Cardinal Point Drive, Suite 202
Jacksonville, FL 32257
904.432.3200 (o)
904-432-3201 (f)
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and may contain information which is legally privileged or otherwise exempt from disclosure. They are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom this e-mail is addressed. If you are not one of the named recipients or otherwise have reason to believe that you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender and delete this message immediately from your computer. Any other use, retention, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited.
landten mailing list
landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org
http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/landten
