[RPPTL LandTen] Jurisdiction Question

Wed Sep 28 15:56:26 PDT 2011

My argument in the past has been that a “pure” possession action does not determine how much the tenant owes, it only determines whether there is a default entitling the landlord to possession and the amount of the default (whether it is $100 or $100,000) is immaterial. Tenants have, of course, argued that the amount allegedly in default was in excess of the County Court’s jurisdiction and the case should therefore be transferred to Circuit Court. I replied that if the Tenant’s argument was correct, then section 34.011 (2) would say “the County Court has jurisdiction for actions for possession where the amount in default is within the monetary jurisdiction of the County Court,” i.e., a repeat of section 1. By pointing that out, the courts have realized the Tenant’s argument makes no sense.
I can’t say I have had this issue come up a lot of times in my practice (maybe twice?), but my argument has been successful. I defer, however, to my colleagues who litigate evictions day in and day out and have more experience than I do with this issue.
I’ve always thought “amount in controversy” is the issue of money damages, i.e., how much money you are asking for. Technically speaking, there is no “amount in controversy” in a “pure” possession action because the landlord is not asking for money damages. If Landlord files a two-count complaint (one count asking for money damages), then I think “amount in controversy” comes into play.
I’m really curious what others think on this issue.
Thanks
Manny

[http://www.richmangreer.com/emailsig/logo.gif]

Manuel Farach / Of Counsel - Board Certified in Real Estate Law and Business Litigation by The Florida Bar

Richman Greer P.A.
One Clearlake Centre
Suite 1504
250 Australian Avenue South
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
Office: 561.803.3500
Fax:
Direct:
Email:
www.RichmanGreer.com<http://www.RichmanGreer.com>

[http://www.richmangreer.com/emailsig/meritas.gif]

To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform
you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including
any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for
the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii)
promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter
addressed herein.
This message contains confidential information and is intended for landten at lists.flabarrpptl.org. If you are not
landten at lists.flabarrpptl.org you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in
reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. E-mail
transmission cannot be guarranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender (MFarach at richmangreer.com) therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which
arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please request a hard-copy version.

From: landten-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Anthony J. Horky
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 10:45 AM
To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee'
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Jurisdiction Question

All:  I think the jurisdiction statute when read in conjunction with Chapter 83 answers Les’s question and obviates the need for a statutory amendment.  In my opinion, the summary nature of possession actions still remains, but where the parties are in dispute over amounts exceeding $15,000.00 (or any amount), they have a right to an evidentiary hearing to adjudicate this issue.  The “delay” in proceeding in circuit court seems to exist because of an overloaded court system, not from an ambiguity or other procedural problem with §§ 51.011 or 83.21, Fla. Stat.

Here’s my view:

Section 34.11(2), Fla. Stat., states that “[t][he county court shall have exclusive jurisdiction of proceedings relating to the right of possession of real property and to the forcible or unlawful detention of lands and tenants, except that the circuit court has jurisdiction if the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional limits of the county court…”  Emphasis added.

Section 83.232, Fla. Stat. states that “[i]n an action by the landlord which includes a claim for possession of real property”  if the tenant contests the amount alleged in the complaint, or interposes the defense of payment or satisfaction of the rent in the amount alleged in the complaint, the court must make a determination of what rent, if any is due and enter an order that the tenant pay the amount determined by the court as due into the court registry.

I think that § 34.11(2), Fla. Stat. supports Manuel’s statement that county courts have jurisdiction over “pure” possession actions, but this implies an action where there is no dispute as to the amount of rent due.   If the tenant disputes the amount of rent due or interposes the defense of payment, this places the amount of rent into the category of the amount in controversy , which will require an evidentiary hearing to resolve.  A plain meaning interpretation of “except that the circuit court has jurisdiction if the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional limits of the county court” means that in possession actions where the tenant disputes the amount of rent due or interposes a defense of payment, the county court cannot enter an order or adjudicate an amount in controversy that exceeds its jurisdictional limit of $15,000.00.

Any alternative arguments will be appreciated.

Thank you.

Anthony J. Horky, Esquire
Anthony J. Horky, P.A.
301 Yamato Road, Suite 1240
Boca Raton, Florida 33431
Telephone: (561) 226-4628
Facsimile: (561) 994-6693
Email:  ajhorky.law at gmail.com
This message and the documents attached to it, if any, are intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is attorney-client privileged or confidential, and/or may contain attorney work product.  If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please delete all electronic copies of this message and its attachments, if any, destroy any hard copies you may have created and notify me immediately at: ajhorky.law at gmail.com.
-------------------------------------------------------
Tax Advice Disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS under Circular 230, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments), unless otherwise specifically stated, was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any matters addressed herein.

From: landten-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Arthur J. Menor
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 6:27 PM
To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee'
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Jurisdiction Question

This seems like an issue that might be ripe for a legislative fix.  The rent deposit statute was intended to speed up the process of eviction for non-payment of rent.  It appears that it may be having the opposite effect.

[http://www.shutts.com/shutts100.jpg]

Arthur J. Menor
Partner
________________________________
Shutts & Bowen LLP
1100 CityPlace Tower, 525 Okeechobee Boulevard | West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Direct: (561) 650-8510 | Fax: (561) 822-5510
E-Mail<mailto:AMenor at shutts.com> | Biography<http://www.shutts.com/attorneys-Arthur-Menor.html> | V-Card<http://www.shutts.com/vcard-132.vcf> | Website<http://www.shutts.com/>

________________________________
From: landten-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Anthony J. Horky
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 4:41 PM
To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee'
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Jurisdiction Question
It is true that county court has jurisdiction over the possession count.  However, what if the tenant disputes the amount of rent due and files a motion to determine the amount of rent due?  Does the county court have jurisdiction to adjudicate and enter an order that tenant deposit an amount of money that exceeds its jurisdictional limit?  I’m not so sure on that.

Anthony J. Horky, Esquire
Anthony J. Horky, P.A.
301 Yamato Road, Suite 1240
Boca Raton, Florida 33431
Telephone: (561) 226-4628
Facsimile: (561) 994-6693
Email:  ajhorky.law at gmail.com
This message and the documents attached to it, if any, are intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is attorney-client privileged or confidential, and/or may contain attorney work product.  If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please delete all electronic copies of this message and its attachments, if any, destroy any hard copies you may have created and notify me immediately at: ajhorky.law at gmail.com.
-------------------------------------------------------
Tax Advice Disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS under Circular 230, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments), unless otherwise specifically stated, was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any matters addressed herein.

From: landten-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Manuel Farach
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 4:30 PM
To: lesstevens at earthlink.net; RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Cc: 'James Reyer'
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Jurisdiction Question

County court has jurisdiction of “pure” possession actions no matter how much rent is in default. If there were a second count for damages in excess of $15,000, then you could move to transfer to circuit court

[http://www.richmangreer.com/emailsig/logo.gif]

Manuel Farach / Of Counsel - Board Certified in Real Estate Law and Business Litigation by The Florida Bar

Richman Greer P.A.
One Clearlake Centre
Suite 1504
250 Australian Avenue South
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
Office: 561.803.3500
Fax:
Direct:
Email:
www.RichmanGreer.com<http://www.RichmanGreer.com>

[http://www.richmangreer.com/emailsig/meritas.gif]

To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform
you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including
any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for
the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii)
promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter
addressed herein.
This message contains confidential information and is intended for lesstevens at earthlink.net, landten at lists.flabarrpptl.org, jrlaw10 at bellsouth.net. If you are not
lesstevens at earthlink.net, landten at lists.flabarrpptl.org, jrlaw10 at bellsouth.net you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in
reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. E-mail
transmission cannot be guarranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender (MFarach at richmangreer.com) therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which
arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please request a hard-copy version.
From: landten-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of lesstevens
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 4:26 PM
To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee'
Cc: 'James Reyer'
Subject: [RPPTL LandTen] Jurisdiction Question

Stupid Question time:

I have a commercial client who owes rents significantly in excess of the $15k jurisdiction of the County Court. Suit is filed in County Court ONLY for eviction. Can this be sustained, or do I have a basis for moving the Court to transfer the case to the Circuit Court despite there being no demand for money?

Les H. Stevens, Esquire
Les H. Stevens, P.A.
5301 North Federal Highway
Suite 130
Boca Raton, Florida 33487
Tel. - (561) 989-9797
Fax - (561) 989-8484
E-Mail - lesstevens at earthlink.net

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHOM IT IS ADDRESSED, AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL AND/OR OTHERWISE EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS TRANSMITTAL IN ERROR, PLEASE DELETE IT AND NOTIFY THIS OFFICE IMMEDIATELY

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.

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 in error, please notify the sender by
email reply. Thank you.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/private/landten/attachments/20110928/8079de3b/attachment-0001.html>