[RPPTL LandTen] FW: N-1003 - Landlord Tenant Committee: Legislative Proposal - Landlord Tenant Committee - Evictions

Thu Dec 12 12:50:05 PST 2013

James,

Thank you for the tenant perspective. I would simply like to reiterate the
following points in light of your email.

If the tenant files a motion to determine rent in the first place, I don't
believe it is an extremely onerous burden to require a verified affidavit
as well.

Requiring a verified affidavit will require the tenant to immediately place
the amount of uncontested rent into the Court before any hearing whatsoever
may be had, thus furthering legislative intent, reducing delay tactics, and
providing the landlord with some form of reimbursement for time of
possession that would otherwise go uncompensated.

Furthermore, requiring a verified affidavit puts a greater duty on the
judge not to ignore the statutory requirement of providing evidence with a
Motion to Determine Rent.

Second, if there are truly disputed issues requiring findings of facts, the
judge can, and should have the discretion to, set a hearing.  However, if
the process speeds up 50% of evictions in which tenants play delay games,
it's worthwhile.

Conrad Kahn Esq.
Conrad Kahn P.L.
FBN. 104456
P.O. Box 41-4213
Miami Beach, FL 33141
T.  (305) 865-0865
F.  (305) 200-0139
Email:  ConradKahn at gmail.com

*PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIAL NOTICE:*  This e-mail is covered by the
Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521 and is legally
privileged.  The contents of this e-mail message and any attachments are
intended solely for the party or parties addressed and named in this
message.  This communication and all attachments, if any, are intended to
be and to remain confidential, and it may be subject to the applicable
attorney-client and or work product privileges.  If you are not the
intended recipient of this message, or if this message has been addressed
to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply e-mail and
then delete this message and its attachments.  Do not deliver, distribute,
or copy this message and or any attachments if you are not the intended
recipient.  Do not disclose the contents or take any action in reliance
upon the information contained in this communication or any attachments.
 Although this e-mail and any attachments are believed to be free of any
virus or other defect that might affect any computer into which it is
received and opened, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure
that it is virus free and no responsibility is accepted by Conrad Kahn P.L.
for damage arising in any way from its use.

On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 3:00 PM, James Zink <james.zink at frls.org> wrote:

> Speaking from the tenant’s side, I am not sure the proposed language is
> appropriate. Having a maximum number of days for deposit is one thing and
> worth discussing, but I also believe it is too much of a burden on the
> individual for the to be getting verified responses filed. The statute
> already requires evidence be presented with the filing, not simply filing a
> motion itself. If a judge ignores that and simply grants a hearing based
> solely on a motion without evidence, that is a judicial discretion issue,
> not a statutory issue.
>
>
>
> Further, this process is already in summary procedure which moves it
> faster than a normal suit. It’s one thing perhaps to adjust the time in
> which deposits need be made. It is another to create huge burdens due to a
> few bad actors in a process that is already expedited compared to most
> other areas. How is someone supposed to know how much their rent should be
> reduced for failure to make repairs? Certain things should be left to a
> fact finder, not the guessing of a pro se tenant.
>
>
>
> I operate in the same county as Cary. I cannot say I have seen anything
> close to that amount of time being offered to my client. To be honest, most
> times we get the 3-5 days, which I think is the appropriate amount of time
> because, as Cary said, the presumption is that they have the money but were
> never given the opportunity to deposit. I think that is reasonable to
> discuss. All these extra burdens, however, I am not sure are equitable to
> both parties.
>
>
>
> Lastly, since I really think this is an issue with tenant friendly judges
> being overly generous with their timelines, I have just as many
> frustrations with landlord friendly judges that ignore clear evidence for
> reducing rent and refusing rent determination hearings. Just saying that
> the process, while not perfect, might be ok with some judicial discretion.
>
>
>
> James Zink, Esq.
>
> Florida Rural Legal Services, Inc.
>
> 3111 South Dixie Highway, Suite 140
>
> West Palm Beach, FL 33405
>
> Phone: (561) 820-8902 x. 6025
>
> Fax: (561) 820-8892
>
>
>
> *The information contained in this e-mail, including any attachment(s), is
> intended solely for use by the named addressee(s). If you are not the
> intended recipient, or a person designated as responsible for delivering
> such messages to the intended recipient, you are not authorized to
> disclose, copy, distribute or retain this message, in whole or in part,
> without written authorization from the sender.  If you have received this
> message in error, please notify the sender immediately*
>
>
>
> *From:* landten-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:
> landten-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org] *On Behalf Of *Cary Sabol
>
> *Sent:* Thursday, December 12, 2013 2:32 PM
> *To:* RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee
> *Subject:* Re: [RPPTL LandTen] FW: N-1003 - Landlord Tenant Committee:
> Legislative Proposal - Landlord Tenant Committee - Evictions
>
>
>
> I agree with Conrad 100% and have faced the same problem many times.  Here
> in PBC, we have a self help center and they regularly counsel tenants to
> file the Motion to Determine Rent knowing full well the statements are
> false and is filed solely as a delay tactic.  I'd be willing to work on a
> committee on this issue. In addition, I would propose the statutory
> amendment contain language that after the hearing and once the Judge does
> determine the amount of rent owed, that there be a maximum timeframe that
> the tenant must post or face automatic FJ - e.g. 3-5 days.  At that point,
> it has been judicially determined the tenant didn't pay rent, so the short
> timeline would not prejudice the tenant since it's already a past due
> obligation.
>
>
>
> The reason I bring this up is because some "tenant friendly" judges will
> often determine that rent is owed and it can often be 3-4 months worth of
> rent, but give the tenant 2 or even 3 weeks to post, then the hearing a
> week or more after that.  This basically grants the tenant another free
> month of rent, which again, completely subverts the purpose of the
> expedited procedure.
>
>
>
> I might also suggest a deadline on when the final hearing would be
> scheduled after the posting of rent deadline, but I understand that Judge's
> dockets can be busy and it might be taking it too far to statutorily set a
> timeline on hearing dates.
>
>
>
> My 2 cents.
>
>
>
> Cary
>
> *Law Offices of Cary P. Sabol*
>
> *P.O. Box 15981 | West Palm Beach | Florida | 33416 *
>
> *Phone: (561) 281-2744 <%28561%29%20281-2744>*
>
> *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.
>
>
>
> On Thursday, December 12, 2013 2:11 PM, "rick.eckhard at hklaw.com" <
> rick.eckhard at hklaw.com> wrote:
>
> Good afternoon, fellow L/T Committee members,
>
>
>
> Conrad Kahn, in his trailing email, suggests that the committee consider
> proposing an amendment to Florida Statutes § 83.60.  As chair of the
> legislative subcommittee, I'd like to get a feel for committee member
> support for Conrad's suggestion.  I'd also like to hear from those willing
> to work on this matter.  Thank you, Rick
>
> *Richard Eckhard* | *Holland & Knight*
>
> Equity Partner
>
> 100 North Tampa Street, Suite 4100 | Tampa FL 33602
>
> Phone 813.227.6417 | Fax 813.229.0134
>
> rick.eckhard at hklaw.com | www.hklaw.com
>
> Add to address book <http://www.hklaw.com/vcard.aspx?user=Reckhard> | View
> professional biography <http://www.hklaw.com/id77/biosReckhard>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________________________________________________
>
> *From:* Conrad Kahn [mailto:conradkahn at gmail.com <conradkahn at gmail.com>]
> *Sent:* Thursday, December 12, 2013 11:53 AM
> *To:* Lloyd Granet; safrank at arnstein.com
> *Subject:* N-1003 - Landlord Tenant Committee: Legislative Proposal -
> Landlord Tenant Committee - Evictions
>
>
>
> Lloyd & Scott,
>
>
>
> I’m a member of the Landlord/Tenant committee for the RPPTL section of the
> bar.  I have an idea for a legislative proposal regarding evictions and I’d
> like to share my idea with you and, if possible, receive some feedback if
> you think it is feasible or an idea worth exploring.
>
>
>
> In my practice, I deal with evictions often.  Often, a tenant files a
> “Motion to Determine Rent” under Florida Statutes § 83.60 merely as a delay
> tactic.  The hearing proceeds, and even when the tenant admits the amount
> of rent at the hearing, the judge nonetheless allows the tenant further
> time from the date of the hearing to deposit the rent into the Court.
>
>
>
> This whole charade by tenants circumvents the purpose of the relevant
> statutes in affording Landlords a quick eviction remedy.
>
>
>
> My proposal is as follows:  If a tenant wishes to file a “Motion to
> Determine Rent,” the Tenant must also file a verified affidavit stating
> what the tenant believes the rent should be, deposit *that* amount into
> the Court with the filing of the motion, and state the grounds for why the
> rent should be lower than the amount alleged in the complaint.  In
> addition, based on the verified affidavit and motion, the Judge should be
> permitted to make a determination ex-parte, in Chambers without a hearing.
>
>
>
> I truly believe this process would help ameliorate the problem of
> landlords face when tenants filed unwarranted “Motions to Determine Rent.”
>
>
>
> What do you think?
>
>
>
> Conrad Kahn Esq.
>
> Conrad Kahn P.L.
>
> FBN. 104456
>
> P.O. Box 41-4213
>
> Miami Beach, FL 33141
>
> T.  (305) 865-0865
>
> F.  (305) 200-0139
>
> Email:  ConradKahn at gmail.com
>
>
>
> *PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIAL NOTICE:*  This e-mail is covered by the
> Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521 and is legally
> privileged.  The contents of this e-mail message and any attachments are
> intended solely for the party or parties addressed and named in this
> message.  This communication and all attachments, if any, are intended to
> be and to remain confidential, and it may be subject to the applicable
> attorney-client and or work product privileges.  If you are not the
> intended recipient of this message, or if this message has been addressed
> to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply e-mail and
> then delete this message and its attachments.  Do not deliver, distribute,
> or copy this message and or any attachments if you are not the intended
> recipient.  Do not disclose the contents or take any action in reliance
> upon the information contained in this communication or any attachments.
>  Although this e-mail and any attachments are believed to be free of any
> virus or other defect that might affect any computer into which it is
> received and opened, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure
> that it is virus free and no responsibility is accepted by Conrad Kahn P.L.
> for damage arising in any way from its use.
>
>
>
>
> *****IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS
> IMPOSED BY THE IRS, WE INFORM YOU THAT ANY TAX ADVICE CONTAINED IN THIS
> COMMUNICATION (INCLUDING ANY ATTACHMENTS) IS NOT INTENDED OR WRITTEN BY
> HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP TO BE USED, AND CANNOT BE USED, FOR THE PURPOSE OF (I)
> AVOIDING TAX-RELATED PENALTIES UNDER THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, OR (II)
> PROMOTING, MARKETING, OR RECOMMENDING TO ANOTHER PARTY ANY TAX-RELATED
> MATTER HEREIN.*****
>
>
> NOTE: This e-mail is from a law firm, Holland & Knight LLP (“H&K”), and is
> intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed.
> If you believe you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender
> immediately, delete the e-mail from your computer and do not copy or
> disclose it to anyone else. If you are not an existing client of H&K, do
> not construe anything in this e-mail to make you a client unless it
> contains a specific statement to that effect and do not disclose anything
> to H&K in reply that you expect it to hold in confidence. If you properly
> received this e-mail as a client, co-counsel or retained expert of H&K, you
> should maintain its contents in confidence in order to preserve the
> attorney-client or work product privilege that may be available to protect
> confidentiality.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> landten mailing list
> landten at lists.flabarrpptl.org
> http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/landten
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/pipermail/landten/attachments/20131212/e932746a/attachment-0001.html>