[RPPTL LandTen] Question for my residential colleagues
Greg Hass
GregH at floridarealtors.org
Thu Jun 10 08:49:54 PDT 2010
Great question and I don't really know the answer having never
researched it. However, I agree with Anthony about the slippery slope
and because of the risk I would always caution a buyer against buying
property with an existing lease without verifying the amount of the
security deposit and getting it turned over at closing. Standard F of
the FARBAR contract coupled with the optional Existing Tenant rider
would give the buyer the ability to terminate the sales contract if the
seller plays games with the deposit at closing.
If buyer decides to close anyway I'd say they proceed at their own risk.
They will need to cross their fingers and hope that the Mullendore
Theatres case out of Washington state mentioned earlier will be
persuasive in Florida.
Greg
Greg Hass, Senior Counsel
Office of Law & Policy | FloridaRealtors(r)
7025 Augusta National Drive, Orlando, FL 32822
talk: 407.438.1400, ext. 2421
visit: http://www.floridarealtors.org
All Aboard for the ultimate education destination:
http://convention.floridarealtors.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.
From: landten-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org
[mailto:landten-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Anthony J.
Horky
Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 11:34 AM
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Question for my residential colleagues
I agree with Mr. Drobner. Any other interpretation is a slippery
slope...where do the new landlord's rights, duties and obligations to
the tenant begin and end? In my opinion, if he assumed the lease, he's
on the hook and his recourse would be, if any, against the prior owner.
Regards,
Anthony J. Horky, Esq.
Mombach, Boyle & Hardin, P.A.
500 East Broward Boulevard
Suite 1950 Broward Financial Centre
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33394
Telephone: 954.467.2200 ext. 225
Facsimile: 954.467.2210
E-Mail: ahorky at mbhlawyer.com
Website: www.mbhlawyer.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: Unless otherwise stated, the information in
this email transmission is privileged and confidential. If you are not
the intended recipient, nor the employee or agent responsible for
delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that
any dissemination or copying of this transmission (including any
attachments) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email
transmission in error, please notify the sender by email reply
immediately. Thank you.
Internal Revenue Service regulations require that certain types of
written advice include a disclaimer. To the extent the proceeding
message contains advice relating to a Federal tax issue, unless
expressly stated otherwise, the advice is not intended or written to be
used, and it cannot be used by the recipient or any other taxpayer, for
the purpose of avoiding Federal tax penalties, and was not written to
support the promotion or marketing of any transaction or matter
discussed herein.
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 sued 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.
________________________________
From: landten-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org
[mailto:landten-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Drobner,
David S.
Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 11:23 AM
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Question for my residential colleagues
Why wouldn't the grantee be liable to fully perform under the Lease
contract he assumed, including return of moneys (deposit) at end of
term? He maybe then has a claim against the grantor for his loss in this
regard unless the conveyance included releases? How can the grantee be
relieved of a contract obligation of performance?
________________________________
From: landten-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org
[mailto:landten-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of David
Weisman
Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 11:09 AM
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Question for my residential colleagues
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 <mailto:SAFrank at 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/private/landten/attachments/20100610/3522907c/attachment-0001.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/20100610/3522907c/attachment-0001.jpe
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 2986 bytes
Desc: image002.gif
Url : http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/private/landten/attachments/20100610/3522907c/attachment-0001.gif
More information about the landten
mailing list