[RPPTL LandTen] Action to recover Residential Security Deposit

[Anthony J. Horky]

I tend to agree with Mr. Zink's rationale on how sub (3)(c) was written.  A
statutory mandate that an action must be brought will increase litigation
not prevent it. 

Regards, 



Anthony J. Horky, Esquire
Anthony J. Horky, P.A.
2255 Glades Road, Suite 324A
Boca Raton, Florida 33431
T: 561.989.3206
F. 561.989.3204		
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.




-----Original Message-----
From: landten-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org
[mailto:landten-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of James Zink
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 3:35 PM
To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Action to recover Residential Security Deposit

I think this is basically correct. I can tell you in my practice, the common
practice for a landlord is to keep the money unless sued. I think the
statute is left intentionally vague because, depending on the case, one side
may be presenting a completely bogus basis to either get the money returned
or to keep the money. By simply referring to the attorney fees, the statute
attempts to reach its desired result through implication of penalty: if you
do not have a serious basis to either keep the deposit or to demand its
return, you may want to reconsider holding it or pursuing it lest you may
end up owing significantly more than the deposit amount. Yes, it would be
easier if the statute said that the undisputed money must be returned and
the disputed money must be sued for, but I think the way it is written is
meant to encourage settlement rather than encourage litigation through
statutory process. It appears this is the line of thinking given the new
disclosures necessary under the amended law as it specifically requires that
language be put in encouraging settlement without litigation. 

So, in answer to the question, the landlord is not required by statute, as
far as I can tell, to return the deposit, but should weigh the chances of
success or failure in court against the benefit of the deposit amount
itself. 

Best, 

James Zink, Esq. 

________________________________________
From: landten-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org
[landten-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Anthony J. Horky
[ahorky at horkylaw.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 3:04 PM
To: 'RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee'
Subject: Re: [RPPTL LandTen] Action to recover Residential Security Deposit

In my opinion, s. 83.49, Fla. Stat., does not go far enough to guide the
landlord and tenant on what happens after the landlord timely serves a
notice of claim and the tenant timely serves its objection to the claim.
Some argue that the landlord should not have to do anything after making its
claim, regardless of the objection by the tenant.  Rather, it is the
tenant’s obligation to bring an action for breach of contract, specific
performance, declaratory judgment, etc., to recover its security deposit.
Others would argue that a landlord cannot self-adjudicate its right to claim
the deposit under the lease.  When s. 83.49(3(a),(b) and (c), Fla. Stat.,
are read together, it seems to suggest that the landlord has to bring an
action to adjudicate its claim.  After all, if the tenant fails to pay rent,
the landlord must enforce its rights through an eviction action to remove
the tenant.  Arguably, if the tenant damages the unit, the landlord must
enforce its right to keep the security deposit through an action for
declaratory judgment or breach of contract.

Section 83.49 (3)(a)  states the landlord’s obligation to return the deposit
or serve a written notice of its intent to impose a claim along with the
statutory language.  Subsection (3(b) states that unless the tenant timely
objects to the imposition of the claim, the landlord may deduct the amount
of its claim from the security deposit, which is also contained in the
statutory notice.  The problem is that the statute does not go far enough to
inform the landlord or tenant what happens after the tenant timely serves
its objection.  Instead, subsection (3)(c) provides for the prevailing
party’s right to fees and costs by first referencing the bringing of an
action by either party, to adjudicate the party’s right to the security
deposit.  Without looking into the legislative history, section (3)(c) seems
to imply that the landlord must bring an action to adjudicate its right to
the deposit following a timely objection by the tenant.

Perhaps this is another area where a clarification to the statute is needed.

Regards,


[cid:image002.png at 01CEA3FF.F26C60E0]


Anthony J. Horky, Esquire

Anthony J. Horky, P.A.

2255 Glades Road, Suite 324A

Boca Raton, Florida 33431

T: 561.989.3206

F. 561.989.3204

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<mailto: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.




From: landten-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org
[mailto:landten-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of David Weisman
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 4:19 PM
To: landten at lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: [RPPTL LandTen] Action to recover Residential Security Deposit

At the end of the lease, tenant vacates and leaves the premises in poor
condition. Within the 30 days, landlord provides a detailed notice of
intention to impose a claim. Tenant, through counsel, timely objects to the
claim. The statute does not say how long the parties have to file suit. Can
the Landlord just sit and not return the deposit?
For how long?

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

[cid:image003.jpg at 01CEA3FB.5B164CF0]



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.



A portion of our practice involves the collection of debt and any
information you provide will be used for that purpose if we are attempting
to collect a debt from you.




_______________________________________________
landten mailing list
landten at lists.flabarrpptl.org
http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/landten



-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.3392 / Virus Database: 3211/6615 - Release Date: 08/28/13


-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.3392 / Virus Database: 3211/6615 - Release Date: 08/28/13