Source: https://browardlandlord.wordpress.com/tag/83-49/
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 09:21:05+00:00

Document:
Tenants entered into a lease and deposited a security deposit with landlord’s property manager. At the end of the lease, the manager attempted to contact the landlord to gain access to the property to perform an inspection. When the landlord did not respond after a week, the property manager terminated their management contract and, the following week, sent the keys and the deposit to the landlord. Neither the manager nor the landlord ever made a claim against the deposit. The landlord cashed the deposit check two months ager the lease ended. In the meantime, the property manager directed the tenants to contact the landlord directly. the landlord never responded. It turned out that the property had been in foreclosure during the entire lease term, and the landlord had consented to a judgment of foreclosure a few days after cashing the security deposit check.
When the tenants did not get their deposit back, they sued the property manager. The property manager moved to dismiss for failure to name the landlord, who they had transferred the deposit money to. The court disagreed, ruling that the property manager was only authorized to transfer the deposit funds upon a change in either the manager or of the landlord. As neither had changed, the property manager was responsible for the security deposit. The court ruled that the property manager had a responsibility to both the landlord and the tenant over the security deposit, as it was the tenant’s money until the landlord had made a claim against it.
Florida Statutes Section 83.49 make the award of attorneys fees to the prevailing party in a claim for security deposit mandatory. What makes one side the prevailing party? The case law indicates that if the tenant recovers anything, the tenant is the prevailing party. For instance where a tenant sued to recover a $2,200 security deposit, but was only awarded $708, the tenant was the prevailing party [Rose v. Gaglioti 46 Fla. Supp 2d 19 (11 Cir 1991)]. Likewise when a tenant sued on three counts failure to maintain, habitability, and security deposit, and lost the first two counts, but recovered the deposit, he was still deemed the prevailing party Bohanan v. Bergman 8 Fla L. Weekly Supp 428a (17th Cir App 2001).
Some cases have reduced the tenants attorney fee award in proportion the share of the deposit recovered [Stephenson v Cox 13 Fla L. weekly Supp 910b (Broward 2006)]. In a case where the landlord failed to make the required claim, the tenant sued to recover the deposit, and the landlord counterclaimed for damages, the tenant was awarded the entire deposit and declared the prevailing party. While the landlord was award damages in the counterclaim, he was not declared the prevailing party because the damages were less than the deposit he had withheld. Malagon v. Solari 566 So.2d 352 (Fla 4thDCA 1990). In a similar case where the landlord’s counterclaim was for unpaid rent, The tenant was awarded fees for prevailing on the security deposit claim, but the landlord was also awarded fees for prevailing on the rent claim. Hicks v. Marchetti 4 Fla L. Weekly Supp 525 (20th Cir App. 1996).
As the attorneys fees will usually exceed the amount of the security deposit, landlords should exercise discretion in claiming against the tenant’s security deposit.
A Sarasota County Court has ruled that although it is a violation of Florida Statutes 83.49(1) for landlord to co-mingle the security deposit with operating funds, the statute provides no penalty for such violation. Tenant’s claim that landlord’s failure to put the security deposit in escrow should result in forfeiture of landlord’s right to make a claim on said deposit and for attorneys fees and costs was denied.
OBENDORF, v. RASMUSSEN. County Court for Sarasota County. Case No. 14 CC 4623 SC. July 1, 2015.
Tenant had a $1,400.00 security deposit with landlord. At the end of the tenancy landlord claimed $840.00 of the deposit and returned $560.00. The tenant refused the $560.00 and sued for the return of the entire deposit. At trial the court ruled that tenant was entitled to a refund of $679.00 and that the landlord was entitled to keep $721.00. Nevertheless, the court determined that the tenant was the “prevailing party” and thus the landlord was liable for the tenant’s attorney’s fees and court costs.
Tenant can not sue for security deposit before moving out.
Landlord filed an eviction on April 10, 2014. Six days later tenant filed a suit for the return of her security deposit. A Writ of Possession was issued in the landlord’s eviction and returned executed on May 2, 2014.
Fla. Stat. §83.49 of the Florida Residential Landlord and Tenant Act gives a landlord fifteen (15) days from the time property is vacated to return a security deposit or otherwise gives thirty (30) days to impose a claim on it.
A statutory cause of action cannot be commenced until the claimant has complied with all the conditions precedent. Inv. & Income Realty, Inc. v. Bentley, 480 So.2d 219 (Fla. 5th DCA, 1985), citing Ferry-Morse Seed Co. v. Hitchcock, 426 So.2d 958 (Fla. 1983). In a case seeking the return of a security deposit, the condition precedent is obviously giving the landlord enough time to comply with Fla. Stat. §83.49.
The court ruled that because the tenant filed her lawsuit prior to possession of the property being returned to the landlord on May 2, 2014, the conditions precedent to filing the suit had not been met, and her claim was not ripe. The Court’s jurisdiction had not been perfected, and therefore the court dismissed the tenant’s suits without prejudice and awarded the landlord attorneys fees and costs as the prevailing party.
Tenant deposited one month’s rent toward a prospective tenancy. Upon move in, the tenant was to tender an additional two months’ rent plus security, but only showed up with two months’ rent. The landlord rejected the partial tender and did not allow the tenant to move in. The tenant sued for his deposit.
The tenant argued 1) that the landlord was the one who breached the lease, because he did not allow him a chance to go to the bank and get the missing funds, and 2) the landlord never sent a certified letter claiming the deposit and thus had no right to claim it.
The court rejected both of these arguments 1) finding it was not credible that landlord did not give him a chance to tender the missing deposit, and 2) the requirement to send a certified letter claiming the deposit under Fla. Stat. §83.49(3)(a) did not apply for two reasons: a) as the deposit was a rent deposit, and not a security deposit, and b) because the tenant was in beach of the lease and thus not entitled to a written claim.
Entitlement to rent from a breaching tenant is governed by Florida Statute §83.595. The landlord’s options under the statute were to release the Plaintiffs from liability for any rent, or to hold the Plaintiffs liable for rent until the property is relet. The landlord argued that he was entitled to keep the entire rent deposit simply because of the breach of lease, but presented no evidence as to if and when the property was relet. As a result, the Court concluded that the landlord had failed to meet his burden of showing entitlement to the deposit and ordered it returned to the tenant.
TAYLOR, vs. EDRI, . County Court, 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County. February 4, 2013. Robert W. Lee, Judge. 20 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 727c.
Landlord is exempt from statutory requirement to give notice of intent to make claim against security deposit to Section 8 tenant.
Tenant sued for the return of a two thousand two hundred dollar ($2,200.00) security deposit paid to landlord pursuant to a HUD subsidized lease ending in December 2009. Tenant did not vacate at the end of her lease, but remained as a holdover tenant until the landlord was forced to evict her in May 2010. When the landlord retook possession she was owed over eight thousand dollars ($8,000.00) in unpaid rent, not including double rent for the nearly five months tenant held over. Tenant also left the apartment damaged well beyond normal wear and tear. The lanldord did not send a claim against the security deposit pursuant to F.S. Sec. 83.49.
The county court ruled that the tenant was a “tenant at sufferance.” The county court held that the requirement to send a claim under section 83.49, Florida Statutes, does not apply to a “tenant at sufferance.” Thereafter, the county court entered a final judgment in favor of landlord. Tenant appealed.
[t]hose instances in which the amount of rent or deposit, or both, is regulated by law or by rules or regulations of a public body, including public housing authorities and federally administered or regulated housing programs including . . . s. 8 of the National Housing Act, as amended.
The appellate Court agreed with the county court that section 83.49(3)(a), Florida Statutes, is inapplicable to the case at bar, albeit for a different reason1. See § 83.49(3)(a), Fla. Stat. (2011). The Record on appeal established that Appellant rented the subject rental premises through the Section 8 Housing Program and paid the security deposit pursuant to a HUD subsidized lease. Thus, this was an instance “in which the amount of rent or deposit is regulated by law or by rules or regulations of . . . a federally administered or regulated housing program.” See § 83.49(4), Fla. Stat. (2011). Section 83.49(4), Florida Statutes, specifically exempts this matter from the requirements of section 83.49(3)(a), Florida Statutes. See Id. Accordingly, the appellate court affirmed the county court’s final judgment.
The “tipsy coachman” doctrine permits an appellate court to affirm a lower court’s decision if it is correct for any reason. See Dade Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. WQBA, 731 So. 2d 638, 645 (Fla. 1999) [24 Fla. L. Weekly S71a] (concluding that an appellate court is not limited to consideration of the reasons given by the trial court, but rather must affirm the judgment if it is legally correct regardless of those reasons).
1. Security Deposit. There is a new form the landlord must give the tenant upon receipt of a security deposit. Here is a link to the form: https://browardlandlord.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/deposit-notice.pdf. You will be required to use this form starting 1/1/14.
The new law eliminated the requirement for the tenant to object to the landlord’s claim within 15 days if they want to sue to recover their deposit. The revised law provides that if the tenant does not object within 15 days of receipt of the landlord’s claim, the landlord may make the deduction and proceed to refund the balance of the deposit, if any. But now the tenant may still sue the landlord for the deposit even though they did not object to the landlord’s initial claim.
2. Seven day notice. This states that the landlord does not have to issue a second 7 day notice of lease violation. This was not a change in the law, just a clarification of the way it already was.
3. Three day notice change: the previous law was that if you accepted a partial payment, your 3 day notice was voided. Now you can accept a partial payment and proceed to evict upon your original notice as long as you provide a receipt for the partial payment and deposit the rent received into the court registry.
The author failed to note the most important change in the law, which is that a defective 3 day notice no longer means the landlord looses the eviction. F.S. 83.60”defenses to action for rent or possession” has a new provision that “landlord must be given an opportunity to cure a deficiency in a notice or in the pleadings before dismissal of the action.” Also the statute now specifies, that the tenant is required to post the rent in the court registry even if they allege the 3 day notice to be defective.
4. Liquidated damages: the new provides that is the lease requires the tenant to provide up to 60 days notice of intent to renew, the same obligation falls upon the landlord.
Landlord may not collect for carpet cleaning, general cleaning of the house and driveway/patio, or painting, as those expenses are in the nature of ordinary wear and tear which are the responsibility of the landlord. Additionally landlord may not deduct from tenant’s security deposit damage caused by landlord’s failure to repair plumbing leak. BURLEY v. MATEO, Court, 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County. Case No. 10-17638 COWE, Division 81. March 2, 2011. Jane D. Fishman, Judge. 18 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 624a.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §83
 v. 
 v. 
 §83
 §83
 §83
 § 83
 § 83
 v. 
 v.