[RPPTL LandTen] Damages for alleged violation of 83.49(1)?

[Alberto Cardet]

Section 83.49(1) requires a landlord to hold a tenant's security deposit in
separate account and not commingle said funds with any other funds.

Tenant vacates and landlord returns 100% of security deposit.  Tenant now
sues alleging that "upon information and belief" the landlord violated
83.49(1) because landlord commingled funds.  Alleges that as a result
tenant has suffered damages and in addition demands attorney fees and costs.

I have heard at local seminars that 83.49(1) does not contain any teeth, in
the context that failure to abide by 83.49(1) by itself does not provide
any remedy to the tenant or waive the landlord's right to make a claim on
the deposit, which the landlord did not make in my case.

Even if a violation of 83.49(1) exists, is anyone aware of any damages that
may be claimed by a tenant?

Thank you

Albert


Cardet Law, P.A.
1330 Coral Way #301
Miami FL 33145
305-403-7783
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/landten/attachments/20160725/15c3b58e/attachment.html>