[RPPTL LandTen] Witness Requirements

Wed Aug 28 15:00:09 PDT 2019

Not directly on point but the excerpt below from Skylake should point you in the right direction

District Court of Appeal of Florida,
Third District.
SKYLAKE INSURANCE AGENCY, INC.<https://m.next.westlaw.com/s/r?q=advanced%3a+OAID%285007837650%29&saveJuris=False&ct=BUSINESS-INVESTIGATOR&startIndex=1&contextData=%28sc.Default%29&categoryPageUrl=Home%2fCompanyInvestigator&oc=document&transitionType=DocumentItem>, Appellant,
v.
NMB PLAZA, LLC, Appellee.
No. 3D07–454.
Oct. 28, 2009.Rehearing Denied Dec. 28, 2009

The next question we address is whether the landlord should be estopped from relying on the two-witness rule of section <https://m.next.westlaw.com/l/d/FullText?ft=L&pn=1000006&c=FLSTS689.01&od=Iebd002d3c3d211deabe0d03f2b83b8a4&rt=LQ&oc=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29> 689<https://m.next.westlaw.com/d/Iebd002d3c3d211deabe0d03f2b83b8a4/v/FullText.html?ls=Search&oc=Search%20Result&transitionType=SearchItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29&np=Search%2Fv1%2Fresults%2Fnavigation%2Fi0ad73aa50000016cda3878547cbe7f72%3FNav%3DCASE%26fragmentIdentifier%3DIebd002d3c3d211deabe0d03f2b83b8a4%26startIndex%3D1%26transitionType%3DSearchItem%26contextData%3D%2528sc.Search%2529%26originationContext%3DSearch%2520Result&l=CASE&r=1&sid=i0ad73aa50000016cda3878547cbe7f72&sessionScopeId=22b1e2680e003cdda1a20ee36992efb03b115f8bff5a5966828aa4db6b37d938#co_searchTerm_ID0ENKAG>[https://ia.next.westlaw.com/StaticContent_45.4.2004/images/nextTerm.gif]<https://m.next.westlaw.com/l/d/FullText?ft=L&pn=1000006&c=FLSTS689.01&od=Iebd002d3c3d211deabe0d03f2b83b8a4&rt=LQ&oc=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29>.<https://m.next.westlaw.com/l/d/FullText?ft=L&pn=1000006&c=FLSTS689.01&od=Iebd002d3c3d211deabe0d03f2b83b8a4&rt=LQ&oc=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29>01<https://m.next.westlaw.com/d/Iebd002d3c3d211deabe0d03f2b83b8a4/v/FullText.html?ls=Search&oc=Search%20Result&transitionType=SearchItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29&np=Search%2Fv1%2Fresults%2Fnavigation%2Fi0ad73aa50000016cda3878547cbe7f72%3FNav%3DCASE%26fragmentIdentifier%3DIebd002d3c3d211deabe0d03f2b83b8a4%26startIndex%3D1%26transitionType%3DSearchItem%26contextData%3D%2528sc.Search%2529%26originationContext%3DSearch%2520Result&l=CASE&r=1&sid=i0ad73aa50000016cda3878547cbe7f72&sessionScopeId=22b1e2680e003cdda1a20ee36992efb03b115f8bff5a5966828aa4db6b37d938#co_searchTerm_ID0E3KAG>[https://ia.next.westlaw.com/StaticContent_45.4.2004/images/nextTerm.gif]<https://m.next.westlaw.com/l/d/FullText?ft=L&pn=1000006&c=FLSTS689.01&od=Iebd002d3c3d211deabe0d03f2b83b8a4&rt=LQ&oc=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29><https://m.next.westlaw.com/l/d/FullText?ft=L&pn=1000006&c=FLSTS689.01&od=Iebd002d3c3d211deabe0d03f2b83b8a4&rt=LQ&oc=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29> because the landlord drafted the lease, failed to provide signature lines for the landlord's signature, and failed to have Mr. Hadad's signature witnessed when Mr. Hadad signed the document. Amicus explains that under some circumstances, estoppel will be applied to preclude a party from invoking section <https://m.next.westlaw.com/l/d/FullText?ft=L&pn=1000006&c=FLSTS689.01&od=Iebd002d3c3d211deabe0d03f2b83b8a4&rt=LQ&oc=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29> 689<https://m.next.westlaw.com/d/Iebd002d3c3d211deabe0d03f2b83b8a4/v/FullText.html?ls=Search&oc=Search%20Result&transitionType=SearchItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29&np=Search%2Fv1%2Fresults%2Fnavigation%2Fi0ad73aa50000016cda3878547cbe7f72%3FNav%3DCASE%26fragmentIdentifier%3DIebd002d3c3d211deabe0d03f2b83b8a4%26startIndex%3D1%26transitionType%3DSearchItem%26contextData%3D%2528sc.Search%2529%26originationContext%3DSearch%2520Result&l=CASE&r=1&sid=i0ad73aa50000016cda3878547cbe7f72&sessionScopeId=22b1e2680e003cdda1a20ee36992efb03b115f8bff5a5966828aa4db6b37d938#co_searchTerm_ID0E6KAG>[https://ia.next.westlaw.com/StaticContent_45.4.2004/images/nextTerm.gif]<https://m.next.westlaw.com/l/d/FullText?ft=L&pn=1000006&c=FLSTS689.01&od=Iebd002d3c3d211deabe0d03f2b83b8a4&rt=LQ&oc=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29>.<https://m.next.westlaw.com/l/d/FullText?ft=L&pn=1000006&c=FLSTS689.01&od=Iebd002d3c3d211deabe0d03f2b83b8a4&rt=LQ&oc=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29>01<https://m.next.westlaw.com/d/Iebd002d3c3d211deabe0d03f2b83b8a4/v/FullText.html?ls=Search&oc=Search%20Result&transitionType=SearchItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29&np=Search%2Fv1%2Fresults%2Fnavigation%2Fi0ad73aa50000016cda3878547cbe7f72%3FNav%3DCASE%26fragmentIdentifier%3DIebd002d3c3d211deabe0d03f2b83b8a4%26startIndex%3D1%26transitionType%3DSearchItem%26contextData%3D%2528sc.Search%2529%26originationContext%3DSearch%2520Result&l=CASE&r=1&sid=i0ad73aa50000016cda3878547cbe7f72&sessionScopeId=22b1e2680e003cdda1a20ee36992efb03b115f8bff5a5966828aa4db6b37d938#co_searchTerm_ID0EELAG>[https://ia.next.westlaw.com/StaticContent_45.4.2004/images/nextTerm.gif]<https://m.next.westlaw.com/l/d/FullText?ft=L&pn=1000006&c=FLSTS689.01&od=Iebd002d3c3d211deabe0d03f2b83b8a4&rt=LQ&oc=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29><https://m.next.westlaw.com/l/d/FullText?ft=L&pn=1000006&c=FLSTS689.01&od=Iebd002d3c3d211deabe0d03f2b83b8a4&rt=LQ&oc=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29>. In the decided estoppel cases involving leases, the tenant<https://m.next.westlaw.com/d/Iebd002d3c3d211deabe0d03f2b83b8a4/v/FullText.html?ls=Search&oc=Search%20Result&transitionType=SearchItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29&np=Search%2Fv1%2Fresults%2Fnavigation%2Fi0ad73aa50000016cda3878547cbe7f72%3FNav%3DCASE%26fragmentIdentifier%3DIebd002d3c3d211deabe0d03f2b83b8a4%26startIndex%3D1%26transitionType%3DSearchItem%26contextData%3D%2528sc.Search%2529%26originationContext%3DSearch%2520Result&l=CASE&r=1&sid=i0ad73aa50000016cda3878547cbe7f72&sessionScopeId=22b1e2680e003cdda1a20ee36992efb03b115f8bff5a5966828aa4db6b37d938#co_searchTerm_ID0EQOAG> took possession and the landlord accepted the rent. The Florida Supreme Court said in one such case that the lessors were
estopped from contending that the lease here involved is invalid for the reason that it was executed in the presence of only one subscribing witness.... [The lessors] have accepted benefits under the lease, have placed the lessee in possession, have negotiated to convey the lands subject to the lease, and in an all respects have recognized it as being an effective conveyance, and in equity they ought not to be permitted to disavow it now.
Gill v. Livingston, 158 Fla. 577, 29 So.2d 631, 632 (1947)<https://m.next.westlaw.com/l/d/FullText?ft=Y&sn=1947106570&pn=735&od=Iebd002d3c3d211deabe0d03f2b83b8a4&rt=RP&fi=co_pp_sp_735_632&oc=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29#co_pp_sp_735_632>; Taylor v. Rosman, 312 So.2d 239, 241 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)<https://m.next.westlaw.com/l/d/FullText?ft=Y&sn=1975137789&pn=735&od=Iebd002d3c3d211deabe0d03f2b83b8a4&rt=RP&fi=co_pp_sp_735_241&oc=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29#co_pp_sp_735_241>; Arvanetes v. Gilbert, 143 So.2d 825, 826 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)<https://m.next.westlaw.com/l/d/FullText?ft=Y&sn=1962133764&pn=735&od=Iebd002d3c3d211deabe0d03f2b83b8a4&rt=RP&fi=co_pp_sp_735_826&oc=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29#co_pp_sp_735_826>; Lipkin v. Bonita Garden Apartments, Inc., 122 So.2d 623, 624 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)<https://m.next.westlaw.com/l/d/FullText?ft=Y&sn=1960128557&pn=735&od=Iebd002d3c3d211deabe0d03f2b83b8a4&rt=RP&fi=co_pp_sp_735_624&oc=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29#co_pp_sp_735_624>.

*sent via mobile phone

Jordan Marcus Brill, Esq.
6421 Congress Ave., Suite 120
Boca Raton, FL 33487
(561)859-0679
jordan at glachmanbrill.com
www.glachmanbrill.com

The information contained in this email message is intended for review and use of the senders intended recipient and no other. Any recipient or reader of this email that is not an intended recipient or reader is  hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited; any wrongful dissemination or receipt shall not constitute a waiver of any privilege held by the sender or any intended recipient  or client of  the sender.  If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us via email directed to jordan at glachmanbrill.com and by telephone to 561-859-0679, and destroy the original message and all copies thereof and related communications thereto.  Thank you.

On Aug 28, 2019 5:40 PM, Harry Heist <harry at evict.com> wrote:
Question for the group.

2 year residential lease.  Tenant is 15 months in.
Lease signed electronically with no witnesses.
Tenant wants out.

Any case law to overcome the witness requirement of 689.01?

It would be great if we get this law changed.  I would be happy to assist in any way. With electronic signatures, it is really becoming an issue.

Harry

LAW OFFICES OF
HEIST, WEISSE & WOLK P.A.
PH: 1 800 253 8428
FAX: 1 800 367 9038
"Serving the Property Management Professional"
Website:  www.evict.com<http://www.evict.com/>
Email: harry at evict.com<mailto:harry at evict.com>
[cid:image001.png at 01D55DC7.2C35DC20]<https://www.facebook.com/pages/Heist-Weisse-Wolk-PA/343965575625870>

Visit us on Facebook

THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE IS CONFIDENTIAL, ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGED, AND INTENDED FOR THE PERSONS NAMED ABOVE ONLY.  ALL OTHER USE, COPYING, OR DISTRIBUTION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/landten/attachments/20190828/0f4aa3d7/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1153 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/landten/attachments/20190828/0f4aa3d7/image001-0001.png>