[RPPTL LandTen] Condo changing locks on Tenants

[Greg Hass]

Curious to hear the committee members' thoughts on the question I got
today.  Apparently a T of a condo unit is holding over beyond the
termination date of their written lease with LL.  LL wants them out and
notifies their condo association that T is a squatter.  Association then
sends letter to T saying the association will be changing the locks
because their rules require that there must be a valid/current written
lease on file with the association and there no longer is a current
lease.

 

The question I have is can a condo association lawfully engage in what
would be considered "prohibited practices" for a landlord under the LL/T
statute?

 

Here are some of the statutes that I think may come into play:

 

Section 83.67 (2) provides that a "...a landlord of any dwelling
unit...shall not prevent the tenant from gaining reasonable access to
the dwelling unit by any means, including, but not limited to, changing
the locks..."

 

Section 718.303 provides that Tenants are governed by the condo docs and
they are deemed incorporated into any lease.

 

However, Section 83.17 provides that any provision in a rental agreement
is void and unenforceable to the extent that it purports to waive or
preclude the rights, remedies, or requirements set forth in this part,
etc.

 

Under 83.58 the remedy for a tenant holding over is for the Landlord to
file for an eviction.

 

Section 718.303 also provides that an association or unit owner may file
an action for "damages" or "injunctive relief" against a tenant.

 

718.106 provides that "...when a unit is leased, a tenant shall have all
use rights in the association property and those common elements
otherwise readily available for use generally by unit owners..."

 

Does the fact that 718.303 provides for the filing of actions for
damages and injunctive relief against Tenants imply that other actions
(such as changing locks, cutting off electricity, etc) would be
prohibited?  Would it be possible to argue that the LL should be held
responsible for the actions of his association (of which the LL is a
member) and therefore claim damages for prohibited practices under
83.67(6)?  Note that 83.67 (1) uses the phrase "...shall not cause,
directly or indirectly, ..."  Is the LL "indirectly" engaging in
prohibited practices where he stands by and perhaps even encourages his
association to engage in what would be prohibited practices if the LL
were to take the action directly?

 

Thanks for your comments in advance.

 

Regards,

Greg

 

Greg Hass, Senior Counsel

Office of Law & Policy

Florida REALTORS(r)

7025 Augusta National Drive

Orlando, FL  32872-5025

Ph:  (407) 438-1400

GregH at FAR.org <mailto:GregH at FAR.org> 

 

LEGAL DISCLAIMER:  The information transmitted is intended solely for
the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain
confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission,
dissemination or other use of or taking action in reliance upon this
information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is
prohibited. If you have received this email in error please contact the
sender and delete the material from any computer.

 

Florida Realtors(r)
A brand new real estate organization with 93 years of experience!
http://www.floridarealtors.org <http://www.floridarealtors.org> 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/private/landten/attachments/20091222/eb9c6eb6/attachment.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 3508 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
Url : http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/private/landten/attachments/20091222/eb9c6eb6/attachment.jpe