<html><head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Exchange Server">
<!-- converted from text -->
<style><!-- .EmailQuote { margin-left: 1pt; padding-left: 4pt; border-left: #800000 2px solid; } --></style></head>
<body>
<body><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small">"The original idea of the sponsor was that a law enforcement officer could remove a person who is clearly a transient occupant. This draft improves on the original bill by requiring a sworn statement from the real owner, providing for a civil summary eviction action if the law enforcement officer will not remove the transient, and providing a non-transient with a cause of action for wrongful removal."</span></div><div><br></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span">First time reader of Draft #4 with years of landlord/tenant and unlawful detainer actions, but this bill confusingly reads like a policy to just get a person out on an affidavit.</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span"><br></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span">As to living up to the claimed original idea of the sponsor, the bill does not clearly articulate transient occupant, but rather provides a non-exhaustive (and probably also non-conclusive) list of factors, when the claimed intent is to facilitate and clarify with precision the removal of "</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small">a person who is clearly a transient occupant".</span><span class="Apple-style-span"> </span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span"><br></span></div><div>Further, the possesion language does not reflect ownership, but rather seems to include a wide-variety of apparent possessory claims of interest supported by mere affidavit (like the kind supporting claims in courts rather than conclusions). We all know lots of attorneys that don't appreciate the difference between unlawful detainer, eviction or ejectment let alone lay people having the right to make an affidavit supporting that someone is clearly a transient occupant. Why is the possession language different than 810.08 which says,"<span style="">the owner or lessee of the premises, or by a person authorized by the owner or lessee".</span></div><div><br></div><div>The current 83.04 already provides a summary action, so none is actually created by the bill, but rather an action is available when law enforcement doesn't do what the affiant claims.</div><div><span class="Apple-style-span"><br></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span">Like other commenters from the listserv, </span>I too am confused by proposed paragraph (3). Police and sheriff's deputies have for years told Floridians that they won't get involved in civil living arrangement matters, outside of criminal activity or family DV matters. Under the bill they may(?) respond to an affidavit, and figure out if the affidavit is on behalf of some person/entity that is claiming entitlement to possession? Will the practical impact be to go in search of law enforcement officers willing to aid the affidavit removal process, given a history of staying out of auch disputes? Or will word circulate among law enforcement that they are indemnified so they can act on any afffidavit?? Are they supposed to check property ownership records (most won't)? And how would they have any idea about (sub)leases, verbal agreements, or assignability or otherwise related to possession? </div><div><br></div><div>Any attorney or judge working in this space knows Florida's history of no self help (eviction, unlawful detainer or ejectment actions for possession), and an affidavit combined with law enforcement indemnification doesn't seem well planned, nor balanced, given a lack of judicial involvement and no provision for attorneys fees to a wrongfully aggrieved party.</div><div><br></div><div>One of the factors allows a person actually paying rent to be considered a transient (factor (1)(a)5.)?? This seems to contradict the landlord tenant act.</div><div><br></div><div>Finally, the right to injunctive relief (preserving the status quo)seems hollow when a person is already removed (as the bill appears to allow immediate removal).</div><div><br></div><div>The bill disappointingly reads as though the original concept was that "Because I Said So" in an affidavit a person should be removed by law enforcement, who will have almost no accountability or downside liabilty for just following the affiant.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Patrick T. Hogan, Esq.</div><div><br></div><div><div style="font-size:75%; color:#575757"><br></div></div><br><br><br><br><br>-------- Original message --------<br>From: Arlene Udick <arlene@udicklaw.com> <br>Date: 02/23/2015 6:29 PM (GMT-05:00) <br>To: RPPTL Landlord Tenant Committee <landten@lists.flabarrpptl.org> <br>Subject: [RPPTL LandTen] FW: draft changes for HB 305 <br><br><br></body>
<font size="2"><div class="PlainText">Rob just sent me an updated draft of proposed HB 0305<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Arlene C. Udick, Esq.<br>
(p) 352-391-1888<br>
(c) 352-217-3176<br>
<br>
EMAIL CONFIDENTIALITY: The information contained in this electronic message may contain attorney-client privilege and confidential information intended only for use of the owner of the email address listed as the recipient of this message. If you are not the intended recipient of this email message you are hereby notified that any disclosure, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender by return email and/or by telephone at 352-391-1888. <br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: Freedman, Robert S. [<a href="mailto:RFreedman@cfjblaw.com">mailto:RFreedman@cfjblaw.com</a>] <br>
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 6:25 PM<br>
To: Arlene Udick<br>
Cc: Freedman, Robert S.; Steven H. Mezer<br>
Subject: Fwd: draft changes for HB 305<br>
<br>
Arlene, here is an updated version. Thanks. Rob<br>
<br>
Robert S. Freedman<br>
Sent from my iPad<br>
<br>
Begin forwarded message:<br>
<br>
From: Peter Dunbar <PDunbar@deanmead.com<mailto:PDunbar@deanmead.com>><br>
Date: February 23, 2015 at 6:09:00 PM EST<br>
To: Robert Freedman <RFreedman@cfjblaw.com<mailto:RFreedman@cfjblaw.com>>, Steve Mezer <smezer@bushross.com<mailto:smezer@bushross.com>><br>
Subject: Fwd: draft changes for HB 305<br>
<br>
Updated version for review.<br>
<br>
Sent from my iPad<br>
<br>
Begin forwarded message:<br>
<br>
From: "Bond, Nathan" <Nathan.Bond@myfloridahouse.gov<mailto:Nathan.Bond@myfloridahouse.gov>><br>
Date: February 23, 2015 6:03:55 PM EST<br>
To: 'Peter Dunbar' <PDunbar@deanmead.com<mailto:PDunbar@deanmead.com>><br>
Cc: Martha Edenfield <MEdenfield@deanmead.com<mailto:MEdenfield@deanmead.com>><br>
Subject: RE: draft changes for HB 305<br>
<br>
<br>
Tom Cibula had some technical/grammar/style suggestions that are in this revised draft #4.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
The original idea of the sponsor was that a law enforcement officer could remove a person who is clearly a transient occupant. This draft improves on the original bill by requiring a sworn statement from the real owner, providing for a civil summary eviction action if the law enforcement officer will not remove the transient, and providing a non-transient with a cause of action for wrongful removal.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
From: Peter Dunbar [<a href="mailto:PDunbar@deanmead.com">mailto:PDunbar@deanmead.com</a>]<br>
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 3:28 PM<br>
To: Bond, Nathan<br>
Cc: Martha Edenfield<br>
Subject: RE: draft changes for HB 305<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
I am on it.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
[cid:image001.gif@01D04F91.8502F480]<http://www.deanmead.com/><br>
<br>
<br>
Peter M. Dunbar<br>
Attorney at Law<br>
<<a href="mailto:PDunbar@deanmead.com>PDunbar@deanmead.com<mailto:PDunbar@deanmead.com">mailto:PDunbar@deanmead.com>PDunbar@deanmead.com<mailto:PDunbar@deanmead.com</a>><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Dean Mead<br>
215 S. Monroe Street, Suite 815<br>
Tallahassee, Florida 32301<br>
850-999-4100 . Fax 850-577-0095<br>
<<a href="http://www.deanmead.com/>www.deanmead.com<http://www.deanmead.com">http://www.deanmead.com/>www.deanmead.com<http://www.deanmead.com</a>><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Orlando | Fort Pierce | Gainesville | Tallahassee | Viera/Melbourne<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
________________________________<br>
<br>
PRIVILEGED INFORMATION DISCLAIMER: This email is intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this email is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please delete this email, destroy any hard copies thereof, and notify us immediately by telephone. Thank you.<br>
<br>
________________________________<br>
<br>
From: Bond, Nathan [<<a href="mailto:Nathan.Bond@myfloridahouse.gov>mailto:Nathan.Bond@myfloridahouse.gov">mailto:Nathan.Bond@myfloridahouse.gov>mailto:Nathan.Bond@myfloridahouse.gov</a>]<br>
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 3:27 PM<br>
To: Peter Dunbar<br>
Cc: Martha Edenfield<br>
Subject: draft changes for HB 305<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Pete,<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
You said you could run this by your landlord-tenant subcommittee.<br>
<br>
<br>
</div></font>
</body>
</html>