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

[Joseph S. Hughes, Esq.]

Yes. 

First, when combined with evidence of bad faith, commingling may serve
as a basis for civil theft, breach of fiduciary duty, and conversion,
permitting treble damages under civil theft in both small claims and
county, and punitive damages under breach of fiduciary duty and
conversion in county court. In county court, the fees will typically be
higher than small claims. 

Second, although difficult to prevail on, these additional claims may
also entitle the tenant to a jury trial as independent tort actions
where the lease nonetheless contains a jury trial waiver. This provides
the tenant with additional leverage. If the landlord is particularly
unlikeable or the emotional elements favor the tenant, this could be
devastating to the landlord if the right jury is selected and could
result in much higher damages (not to mention attorney's fees and
costs).    

Third, I only know of one 2nd DCA case that says that commingling does
not result in a forfeiture of the deposit. This could easily be
disagreed with by other DCAs, and since a security deposit is considered
"property", I would still make the argument that if the landlord cannot
reasonably abide by the notice requirements when s/he has effectively
converted the funds, thereby making the deposit unidentifiable for
notice purposes, the notice would be defective. After all, how can a
landlord make a claim on a deposit that technically no longer exists due
to the commingling? Notice that a "deposit" is distinguished from
"damages" for I believe this very reason, among others (including to
avoid offers of judgment.) 

Just my two cents.

---
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. 

On 2016-07-25 15:31, Alberto Cardet wrote:

> 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 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160725/bb27e729/attachment.html>