[RPPTL LandTen] Ejectment or possession action

Mon Apr 9 07:13:06 PDT 2012

Art:

Is there any commercial  leasing issue that you haven't come across before?

Scott A. Frank

Attorney at Law

LAW OFFICES OF SCOTT A. FRANK, P.A.

7781 NW Beacon Square Boulevard, Suite 102

Boca Raton, FL 33487

p:  (561) 372-7860

f:  (561) 423-5721 

sfrank at saflaw.com

www.saflaw.com <http://www.saflaw.com/> 

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.

From: landten-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org
[mailto:landten-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Arthur J. Menor
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2012 9:40 AM
To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee'
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Ejectment or possession action

Lloyd, there is a statute of limitations issue that could limit the tenant's
claim.  See Garden Isles Apts. No. 3 v. Connelly, 546 So.2d 38 (Fla. 4th DCA
1989) and Westinghouse Credit Corporation v. Grandoff Investments, 297 So.2d
104 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974).  I have pulled these cites from a 1997 research memo
so they should be Sheperdized.

From: landten-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org
[mailto:landten-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Lloyd Granet
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2012 9:14 AM
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Ejectment or possession action

New Question

I have a client who is a landlord in a commercial center.  Lease provides
for reimbursement of increase over base year of "insurance due and payable".
Types of insurance are specified.  There is a provision that an insurance
bill or copy submitted shall be conclusive evidence of the amount of
insurance, subject to manifest error, but no other detail on how cost of
insurance is determined.

Tenant is now trying to go back to inception of lease (2005) and challenge
inclusion of insurance broker fee in cost of insurance. 

Any experience or case law?

This email message was sent by:
_______________________________
Lloyd Granet
Law Offices of Lloyd Granet, P.A.
2295 NW Corporate Boulevard, Suite 235
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Direct Dial:  (561) 999-0090
Main Number:  (561) 999-9300 x110
Fax: (561) 999-9400
Email: lgranet at granetlaw.com

NOTICE:  IRS Circular 230 Disclosure:  In order to ensure compliance with
IRS Circular 230, we must inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in
this transmission and any attachments hereto is not intended or written to
be used and may not be used by any person for the purpose of (i) avoiding
any penalty that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Code or (ii)
promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related
matter(s) addressed herein.

NOTICE: This communication is: (a) sent by an attorney or his/her agent, (b)
confidential, and (c) intended only for the use of the individual or entity
to which it is addressed. If the addressee is a client, this communication
is also subject to applicable privileges. If you are not the addressee, or
the employee or agent responsible for the delivery to the addressee, any
dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited.
If you received this communication in error: (a) any dissemination,
distribution or copying is prohibited, and (b) Lloyd Granet, P.A. requests
that you immediately notify us at (561) 999-9300 (collect) and destroy this
communication. Thank you.

From: landten-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org
[mailto:landten-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Joseph Alexander
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2012 2:36 PM
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Ejectment or possession action

I would say unlawful detainer and/or eviction.

Thank you,                          P Think before you print.

Joseph N. Alexander | Partner

POTTER CLEMENT LOWRY 

308 East Fifth Avenue

Mount Dora, Florida 32757

Phone:  352.383.4186

Fax:       352.383.0087

 <BLOCKED::mailto:jnalexander at pcld-law.com> jnalexander at pcld-law.com

This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the
addressee and may contain information that is privileged and confidential.
If the reader of the message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified that any dissemination of this communication is strictly
prohibited.  If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us
immediately by replying to this e-mail message or by telephone and delete
this message and any attachments from your system.  Thank you.

  _____  

From: landten-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org
[mailto:landten-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Anthony J. Horky
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2012 12:05 PM
To: landten at lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: [RPPTL LandTen] Ejectment or possession action

Members:  I'm curious to learn whether you think the person in the following
fact scenario is a tenant subject to a possession action or not and subject
to an ejectment action.  Thank you for your thoughts.

FACTS:  Owner agrees to allow Mrs. Smith to move in to the Owner's
condominium in exchange for payment of the electricity bill.  Owner lives in
the condominium as well.  After one month, Mrs. Smith stops paying
electricity bill.  Owner then demands rent in the amount of $400 per month
which Mrs. Smith initially agrees to pay but the deal terms change when
Owner agrees that Mrs. Smith can remain in the unit without paying rent if
she will assist Owner with a foreclosure action.   Mrs. Smith at no time
paid the $400/month.  Mrs. Smith does assist Owner but now the foreclosure
has been resolved.  In the meantime, Mrs. Smith has invited another person
into the unit, refuses to pay rent, remove the visitor or to turn over
possession.

Eviction or Ejectment?

Thank you.  

Regards,

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

Website: www.horkylaw.com <http://www.horkylaw.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: ahorky at horkylaw.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.

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/20120409/3939742f/attachment-0001.html>