[RPPTL LandTen] Question for my residential colleagues
Haney, Gregory
ghaney at slk-law.com
Thu Jun 10 08:20:05 PDT 2010
Likewise agreed. I've not seen (or looked for) Florida case law on this
issue, but for what it's worth, I have seen this argument made by able
counsel (though in a commercial context). For what it's worth, that
attorney cited Mullendore Theatres, Inc. v. Growth Realty Investors Co.,
39 Wash. App. 64 for the proposition that lease security deposit
obligations do not run with the land. I assume they were unable to find
Florida case law on point and had to go all the way to the other corner
of the country.
And I definitely agree that a DIL situation has no effect on this
analysis.
Gregory R. Haney
Attorney at Law
Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick, LLP
Bank of America Plaza
101 East Kennedy Boulevard
Suite 2800
Tampa, FL 33602
813.229.7600
813.227.2277 direct
813.229.1660 fax
ghaney at slk-law.com
http://www.slk-law.com/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
IRS Circular 230 Notice: We are required to advise you no person or entity may use any tax advice in this communication or any attachment to (i) avoid any penalty under federal tax law or (ii) promote, market or recommend any purchase, investment or other action.
Confidentiality Statement: This electronic message contains information from the law firm of Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick, LLP, and may be confidential or privileged. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this message is prohibited. If you have received this electronic message in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail or telephone 800.444.6659.
________________________________
From: landten-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org
[mailto:landten-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Cary Sabol
Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 11:12 AM
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Question for my residential
colleagues
I would agree with this analysis. Of course, under normal
circumstances, the deposits would be dealt with at closing, but I do not
know of any case law, statutes, or otherwise that automatically places
the burden of returning the deposit on the grantee if he/she/it never
received it. I also agree that a deed in lieu should not change that
conclusion because a deed in lieu is actually considered to be a
transfer for value.
Cary P. Sabol, Esq.
P.O. Box 15981
West Palm Beach, Florida 33416
Phone: (561) 281-2744
Fax: (561) 697-4805
Confidentiality Notice: This email transmission and any attachments are
confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying,
distribution, or use of the information contained herein is STRICTLY
PROHIBITED.
--- On Thu, 6/10/10, David Weisman <David.Weisman at gmlaw.com> wrote:
From: David Weisman <David.Weisman at gmlaw.com>
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Question for my residential
colleagues
To: "RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee"
<landten at lists.flabarrpptl.org>
Date: Thursday, June 10, 2010, 11:08 AM
I think that the Grantee is not responsible for money he does
not receive, either in cash or via a closing credit. The Tenant must
look to the prior owner. No difference if a deed in lieu.
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
From: landten-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org
[mailto:landten-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Frank, Scott
A.
Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 10:37 AM
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Subject: [RPPTL LandTen] Question for my residential colleagues
Question for my residential colleagues from this commercial
fool.
Grantor owns residential rental real estate with a security
deposit and conveys the property to grantee. However, Grantor freely
admits that it no longer holds the security deposit (spent it) and will
not provide for a credit or other adjustment.
83.49 provides only that the grantor in this situation is
released from liability only to the extent that it conveys the deposit -
so they are not off the hook. But the statute does not reference what
limitation, if any, the grantee has with respect to liability for the
deposit. Is the Grantee then liable for the security deposit to the
tenant, if the grantee did not in fact receive the deposit?
And would your opinion change if this was a deed in lieu, with
the possibility that the grantee may just foreclose anyway?
Your guidance and wisdom is much appreciated.
Thanks.
Scott A Frank
Attorney at Law
ARNSTEIN & LEHR LLP
www.arnstein.com <http://www.arnstein.com/>
515 North Flagler Drive
Sixth Floor
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401-4323
Phone: 561.833.9800
Fax: 561.655.5551
433 Plaza Real
Suite 275
Boca Raton, Florida 33401-4323
Phone: 561.962.4145
Fax: 561.962.4245
SAFrank at arnstein.com
<http://us.mc578.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=SAFrank@arnstein.com>
Offices in Illinois, Florida, and Wisconsin
This electronic mail transmission may contain confidential or
privileged information.
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.
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
_______________________________________________
landten mailing list
landten at lists.flabarrpptl.org
<http://us.mc578.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=landten@lists.flabarrpptl.
org>
http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/landten
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/private/landten/attachments/20100610/b605fdba/attachment-0001.html
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 9986 bytes
Desc: image001.png
Url : http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/private/landten/attachments/20100610/b605fdba/attachment-0001.png
More information about the landten
mailing list