<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72"><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal>Is anyone aware of any case law that will support the contention that residential property subject to a residential lease that is exclusively used to operate business and no one actually resides on the property is subject to part 1 of chapter 83 and not part 2?<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>These are my basic facts.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Landlord and tenant enter into residential lease for residential property. Tenant uses property to operate business and never resides on the property. Lease is terminated, however, utilities were shut off early (10 days prior to tenant vacating). Tenant now claims self-help and wants 3 months’ rent. Presiding judge is inclined to rule against tenant on self-help claim based on the fact that although property is residential and lease appears to be residential, this is actually a business lease and tenancy is governed by part1 and not part 2 of chapter 83.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Thank you<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Albert<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Alberto M. Cardet, P.A.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>1330 Coral Way #301<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Miami FL 33145<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>305-403-7783<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>305-403-7824 (fax)<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></body></html>