[RPPTL LandTen] Silly practice question

Sat Aug 18 06:21:26 PDT 2012

I agree with Harry.  I think this notice provision of the Chapter 83 is as strictly interpreted as all the others and if the L/L did not substantially comply with the language, then the notice is not effective.  Of course, as others have noted, you never know whether a CC Judge will follow the law or just say - "well, it's close enough."  So I would recommend sending your client's objection just prior to the 15 day required response period, just in case.

Cary 
Law Offices of Cary P. Sabol
P.O. Box 15981 | West Palm Beach | Florida | 33416 
Phone: (561) 281-2744 

________________________________

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. 
Confidentiality Notice: This electronic mail transmission is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential information belonging to the sender which is protected by the attorney-client privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete the original message. Thank you for your cooperation.

________________________________
 From: Harry Heist <harry at evict.com>
To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee' <landten at lists.flabarrpptl.org> 
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 2:53 PM
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Silly practice question

If I were the tenant and there were no damages and I could 100% prove that, (doubtful) I would wait until the 30 days are up, make a written demand for the return of the deposit and if not returned, sue.   The tenant risks 2 things: 

a. The judge will not follow the law and offset the deposit with anything awarded in a counterclaim or 
b. The tenant will have to deal with the counterclaim.

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:  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 Law Offices of Scott A. Frank
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 2:35 PM
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Subject: [RPPTL LandTen] Silly practice question

Residential lease.

Post-expiration, but less than 30 days out, landlord sends a letter to tenant stating only (i) the name of the tenant, (ii) a laundry list of items that need repair, (iii) a total of the claimed damage (no cost itemization for the 30 – yes, 30 – items listed), and (iv) a summation that lists the security deposit as a reduction of the amount due to show a balance, and (iv) a demand for the balance.

Nothing even remotely resembling the required language found in 83.49.

PS – landlord’s claims are mostly absurd.

Timing is as follows:  lease expired on 7/31.  Notice received by tenant today (8/17)

So the question is:  (i) does tenant respond to the claims themselves, thus waiving the argument that the notice was not sufficient under the statute; (ii) respond that the notice does not comply with the statute without addressing the claims themselves, thus giving the landlord a second bite of the apple by resending the notice (in correct form) within the thirty days, (iii) respond to all claims, and claim that the notice is deficient so that the tenant is entitled to receive the full deposit (also gives a possible second bite of the apple), or (iv) on August 31, 2012, deliver either response (ii) or (iii) thereby eliminating landlord’s ability to resend the notice in time.

Your thoughts?

Thanks.

Scott A. Frank
Attorney at Law

Please note our new address and phone number:

LAW OFFICES OF SCOTT A. FRANK, P.A.
5301 N. Federal Highway, Suite 170
Boca Raton, FL 33487
p:  (561) 826-5400
f:  (561) 423-5721 
sfrank at 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.

_______________________________________________
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/20120818/c488a7d1/attachment.html>