[RPPTL LandTen] Q regarding abandonment

Tue Mar 6 23:50:48 PST 2012

Doesn't the abandoned property statute FS 715.10 require an investigation is some cases?

From: landten-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Harry Heist
Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2012 19:36
To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee'
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Q regarding abandonment

I advise my clients to evict if there is substantial personal property left in the unit just to be safe and have a 20 day or so buffer.  We don’t need to have an unnecessary dispute with the tenant as to whether they were actually "gone" for the full 15 days.

I deal in thousands of cases each year and see many many situations where people just leave and never come back. It appears just as if an alien did indeed abduct them. The units are left full of personal property and the TV is on.

They may be dead, in the hospital, in jail, running from the law or a partner and they just up and leave.  In one of my cases, the tenant was dead and stuffed in the refrigerator for 2 weeks. Usually, they just have taken off, never to be seen again. 

I have had some interesting cases where the tenant had pre-paid their rent, gone on vacation and the property manager failed to post their payment properly or the payment was sitting under the desk where it landed after being put in the drop slot,  resulting in evictions,  writ executions and, in one case, a settlement for over 75K. I just settled one in the past year for over 10K where the tenant was "not completely out" and maintenance threw away the rest of the stuff.  

We just had an interesting one the other day. A writ was executed, locks were changed. Upon further investigation, the tenant was found in the bathtub behind the shower curtain unconscious and bleeding from a suicide attempt.  It is advisable to really "clear" a unit when executing a writ.

Lastly, it is not the landlord's job to hire a private investigator to find out where the tenant is, hence the law. 

Harry

LAW OFFICES OF 
HEIST, WEISSE & WOLK P.A.
PH: 1 800 253 8428
FAX: 1 800 367 9038
"Serving the Property Management Professional"
Website:  www.evict.com <http://www.evict.com/>  
Email: harry at evict.com

THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE IS CONFIDENTIAL, ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGED, AND INTENDED FOR THE PERSONS NAMED ABOVE ONLY.  ALL OTHER USE, COPYING, OR DISTRIBUTION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.

From: landten-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Leonard Cabral
Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2012 6:32 PM
To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee'
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Q regarding abandonment

Group:

Can the rental dwelling also be presumed abandoned if ALL the tenant's worldly belonging are in the rental dwelling? (clothes in the closet, medication in the medicine chest).  Wouldn't the presumption be overcome by finding all the tenant's possession?  I would like to know what a judge would rule if the tenant was in the hospital unable to inform the landlord of his illness?  

Would it be an injustice if the tenant was discharged from the hospital to find ALL his worldly possessions were gone and he was homeless? 

And died from a heart attack on the spot after realizing ALL his possessions were gone and he was homeless?  I would love to litigate a case like this before a jury.  

Should the judge or jury just presume the tenant died?  Presume the tenant was abducted by aliens?  Or should a judge find the landlord acted in bad faith?  

I take the position that if the landlord opens the door and ALL the tenant's worldly possessions are present in the dwelling the presumption of abandonment is overcome and that the tenant did not abandon the rental dwelling.  

Leonard Cabral 

From: landten-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:landten-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Dennis Chen
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 16:31
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Q regarding abandonment

Here is a Broward County Court decision that supports the position that the fifteen day period starts when the tenant is in default.

Dennis A. Chen, Esq.
Chen Law Firm, PA
5401 S. Kirkman Rd., Ste. 310
Orlando, Florida 32819
Tel:   (407) 392-1872
Fax: (407) 392-1873
dennis at chenlaw.net

Bankruptcy * Civil Litigation * Collection Defense * Landlord/Tenant * Real Estate Litigation

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail, including any attachment, contains legally privileged and confidential information and is intended solely for the recipient. Should the intended recipient forward this message to any person or entity, that action could constitute a waiver of the attorney-client privilege. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication was sent or received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message.

On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Greg Hass <GregH at floridarealtors.org> wrote:

Happy Friday everyone.

I have a quick hypothetical to pose – please assume the facts are as follows:

-Tenants have paid their February rent in full on the due date of February 1st.

-Tenants leave for a 3 week cruise on Valentine’s Day – they don’t inform the LL of their plans.

-On March 1st, Tenants are still on their cruise and the March rent (due on March 1st) goes unpaid.

-On March 6th, Tenants get back from their 3 week cruise and find that the locks have been changed.

-When Tenants confront the LL he says he recovered possession of the dwelling unit on March 5th because he presumed the Tenants had abandoned.

LL argues he was within his rights to presume abandonment pursuant to 83.59 (3)(c) (see below) because on March 5th, the day he retook possession, no one had seen hide nor hair of the Tenants for over half a month.  In addition, when he arrived at his presumption of abandonment, he checked to see if the rent was current and in fact it was not current since no rent was paid on March 1st.  LL also checked and could find no notice of any intended absence from the Tenants.  Thus, LL argues he met the test for presumption of abandonment.

Tenants on the other hand argue that the clock for presumed abandonment should not have started ticking until the rent was not current.  They argue that they were only really absent for 5 days for purposes of the presumption of abandonment test (March 1st to March 5th) since their rent was current from February 14th through February 29th.

Who wins this fight?

Thanks,

Greg

83.59 Right of action for possession.— 

***

(3) The landlord shall not recover possession of a dwelling unit except: 

***

(c) When the tenant has abandoned the dwelling unit. In the absence of actual knowledge of abandonment, it shall be presumed that the tenant has abandoned the dwelling unit if he or she is absent from the premises for a period of time equal to one-half the time for periodic rental payments. However, this presumption does not apply if the rent is current or the tenant has notified the landlord, in writing, of an intended absence; or

***

Greg Hass, Senior Counsel

Office of Law & Policy | FloridaRealtors®
7025 Augusta National Drive, Orlando, FL 32822
talk: 407.438.1400, ext. 2421 <tel:407.438.1400%2C%20ext.%202421> 
visit: http://www.floridarealtors.org

The Voice for Real Estate® in Florida

cid:image001.jpg at 01C8B0EE.0B556530

_______________________________________________
landten mailing list
landten at 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/20120307/67601302/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 3508 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/private/landten/attachments/20120307/67601302/attachment-0001.jpg>