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

Thu Dec 12 13:37:14 PST 2013

That statute on the commercial side is problematic anyway--83.232 (3) should be eliminated.  Why does the court have to enter an order?  it is in the summons.  In the residential side it does not contain that language (I know, some courts enter anyway).  But in a commercial case, they rarely do it sua sponte.  When Wal Mart is your tenant, it isn't an issue, but I represent clients with small rents and small tenants and it is just another delay.
On Dec 12, 2013, at 2:44 PM, Manuel Farach wrote:

> 
> I agree with the previous comments.
> Did I miss it or is this proposal to be only on the residential side? Frankly, I think we have a better chance of passing it on the commercial side first, and then bringing it over to the residential side once we establish it is a fair balancing of the equities. The objections to the residential side are going to be that it gives landlords too much power
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manuel Farach / Of Counsel - Board Certified in Real Estate Law and Business Litigation by The Florida Bar
> 
> Richman Greer P.A.
> One Clearlake Centre
> Suite 1504
> 250 Australian Avenue South
> West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
> Office: 561.803.3500
> Fax: 561.820.1608
> Direct: 561.803.3501
> Email: MFarach at richmangreer.com
> www.RichmanGreer.com
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. Treasury Regulation Circular 230 requires us to advise you that written communications issued by us are not intended to be and cannot be relied upon to avoid penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service.
> 
> Incoming emails are filtered which may delay receipt. This email is personal to the named recipient(s) and may be privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you received this in error. If so, any review, dissemination, or copying of this email is prohibited. Please immediately notify us by email and delete the original message..
> 
> 
> 
> 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 
> 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 | View professional biography
>  
>  
>  
> _______________________________________________________________________________________
> From: Conrad Kahn [mailto: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

Lainie J. Simon, Esq. 
185 NW Spanish River Boulevard 
Suite 220 
Boca Raton, FL  33431 
561.445.1361 
561.997.6224(fax) 

PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY 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 system 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 the sender for damage arising in any way from its use. 
Ê 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/landten/attachments/20131212/0b49bd24/attachment-0001.html>