[RPPTL LandTen] Termination of Month-to-Month Tenancy by Landlord Does Not Relieve Landlord of s.83.49 Notice Requirements(?)

[Joseph S. Hughes, Esq.]

Hi everyone, 

I need some case law clarification: 

Section 83.49(3) states: "Upon the vacating of the premises _for
termination of the lease_, if the landlord does not intend to impose a
claim on the security deposit, the landlord shall have 15 days to return
the security deposit together with interest if otherwise required, or
the landlord shall have 30 days to give the tenant written notice by
certified mail to the tenant's last known mailing address of his or her
intention to impose a claim on the deposit and the reason for imposing
the claim." (emphasis added) 

Section 83.49(5) states: "Except when otherwise provided by the terms of
a written lease, any tenant who vacates or abandons the premises prior
to the expiration of the term specified in the written lease, or any
tenant who vacates or abandons premises which are the subject of a
tenancy from week to week, month to month, quarter to quarter, or year
to year, shall give at least 7 days' written notice by certified mail or
personal delivery to the landlord prior to vacating or abandoning the
premises which notice shall include the address where the tenant may be
reached. Failure to give such notice shall relieve the landlord of the
notice requirement of paragraph (3)(a) but shall not waive any right the
tenant may have to the security deposit or any part of it." 

Section 83.56(6) states: "if the rental agreement is terminated, the
landlord shall comply with s. 83.49(3)." 

It seems evident, to me at least, that from a collective plain reading
of the statute, if the landlord (or even tenant if done properly)
terminates a month-to-month tenancy (rather than the tenant simply
vacating or abandoning the premises without sufficient notice), then the
tenant's failure to provide the landlord with 7 days' notice including a
forwarding address prior to vacating does not relieve the landlord of
his/her duty to comply with the notice requirements set forth in section
83.49(3). This seems to be the only logical interpretation, the
rationale for the exception to the general rule being (based on my
analysis) that a landlord cannot be expected to send a notice to a
tenant if s/he does not know that the tenant vacated.  

However, I have not been able to find any case law on point here. Can
anyone point me in the right direction? 

Thanks, 

Joe

-- 
Joseph S. Hughes, Esq.
The Law Office of Joseph Hughes P.A.
515 E. Las Olas Blvd. Ste 120
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Cell: (413) 687-2093
Office: (954)256-5125
Fax: (954) 256-5126
http://www.joehugheslaw.com

The information contained in this email may be attorney privileged and
confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or
entity named above. 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 telephone or reply e-mail and delete
this message and any attachments.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/landten/attachments/20160524/cdeffe35/attachment.html>