Florida legislature passes new unlawful entry and detainer law

Tags

2024, 82.036, florida, fraudulent, LANDLORD, new law, news, transient, trespass, unlawful detainer

New law for unauthorized entry and detainer, § 82.036 F.S.  Passed and enrolled 3/6/2024

Takes effect July 1, 2024

Cast as an alternative remedy for unlawful entry and detainer,  Chapter 82 of Florida Statutes,   this new law allows property owners to submit a complaint form  promulgated by the statute to the county sheriff demanding the immediate extrajudicial remove of an occupant  that is not an immediate family member of the owner and not a current or past tenant.   The sheriff may charge the customary fee for a writ of possession.

A person wrongfully  removed under the new law has the remedy of suing for damages,  triple rent,  attorneys fees, and costs.

Additionally enacted is

§806.13 F.S Criminal Mischief:  any person who unlawfully detains or trespasses on a residential dwelling causing $1000 or more in intentional damage commits a 2^nd degree felony.

§817.03 False Statement to detain real property:  any person with the intent to detain real property presenting a false document purporting to be a lease or other conveyance commits a 1^st degree misdemeanor.

§817.0311  Fraudulent sale or lease of residential property:  any person, who lists or advertises for sale,  or who rents a residential property,  who does not have title or authority to do so commits a 1st degree felony.

Restriction of foreign interests in Florida Real Property SB 264

Tags

china, florida, foreign, prohjibit, purchase, real estate, sale

This Florida law effective July 1, 2023 Criminalizes purchase of certain Florida real estate by certain foreign nationals and for knowing violations by sellers and title agents.

Requires addendum to purchase and sale contract and buyer affidavit of compliance.

Click below to download the documents in Word.

ADDENDUM

BUYER AFFIDAVIT PERSONAL

BUYER AFFIDAVIT ENTITY

Presentation by Florida Realtors on this law June 29, 2023. CLICK HERE for the powerpoint

692.201: Definitions

(2) Critical infrastructure: Chemical manufacturing, refinery, power plant,  LNG terminal, telecommunications central switching office, gas processing plant, seaport, Spaceport, airport.

(3) Foreign country of concern:  China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela under Maduro, Syria.

(4) Foreign principal: 

a government official of a country of concern,

member of a political party,

Business  organized under or having its principal place of business in a county of concern,  or a subsidy of such business,  or persons with a controlling interest

A person domiciled in a country of concern who is not a US citizen or permanent resident

(5) Military Installation :  at least 10 contiguous acres that is under the jurisdiction of the Department of Defense or its affiliates.

(6) Real Property: land, buildings, fixtures, improvements.

692.202.  Purchase of agricultural land by foreign principals prohibited.

(1)  a foreign principal may not own agricultural land in Florida.

(2) Ownership prior to 7/1/23 may continue.

(3) Must register with Dept Agriculture by 1/1/24 or face $1000/day fine,  lienable, foreclosable.

(4) May acquire agricultural land by devise or foreclosure  after 7/1/23   but must divest within 3 years.

(5)  At time of purchase,  buyer must provide an affidavit that it is not a foreign principal and of compliance.

               (a)  failure to obtain/maintain affidavit does not

                              1) affect title or insurability of title

                              2) subject closing agent to liability,  unless has actual knowledge of a violation of this law.

(6)  Foreclosure:  agricultural land in violation of this law can be foreclosed /  forfeited to the State of Florida. 

(e) Proceeds paid to any lienholders,  then applied to fines under this law,  the to court costs, and lastly to the owner.

(f) Dept of Agriculture may see an ex parte order of seizure on a showing of a “clear and present danger” to the state.

(7) Violation by Seller is a misdemeanor of second degree

(8) Buyer who knowingly violates  is a misdemeanor of second degree

692.203 Purchase of real property near military installation by foreign principals prohibited

(1) Prohibited within 10 miles of military installation or critical infrastructure.

(2)  May continue to own pre-existing property.

(3)  Must register with Dept Economic Opportunity.  Penalty $1000/day failure to register by 1/31/24. 

(4)  A foreign principal who is a natural person may nevertheless purchase  one residential property up to 2 acres: 

(a) not less than 5 miles from a military installation

(b) has a US Visa (not  tourist) or granted asylum

(5) may acquire property by devise or foreclosure after 7/1/23  if divests within 3 years.

(6)  Must sign an affidavit time of purchase not a prohibited foreign person,  not violating this law.

               (6)(b)  failure to obtain/maintain affidavit does not

                              1)   affect title or insurability of title

                              2) subject closing agent to liability,  unless has actual knowledge of a violation of this law.

(7) Foreclosure:  agricultural land in violation of this law can be foreclosed. 

(e) Proceeds paid to any lienholders,  then applied to fines under this law,  the to court costs, and lastly to the owner.

(f) Dept of Agriculture may see an ex parte order of seizure on a showing of a “clear and present danger” to the state.

(8) Violation is a misdemeanor of second degree to buyer,  and seller on “knowing”  violation.

692.204 Purchase of real property by China prohibited.

(1) The Chinese government,  communist party, members of the communist party or their subsidies,  business organized under the laws of China,  with a principal place of business in China,  or subsidy thereof, of having a controlling interest therein,    any person domiciled in China  who is not a US citizen or lawful permanent resident.

(2)  Exception:    a natural person may nevertheless purchase  one residential property up to 2 acres: 

(a) not less than 5 miles from a military installation

(b) has a US Visa ( not tourist) or granted asylum

(3)  Pre-existing property may continue to be owned

(4)  Must  register with Department of Economic Opportunity.  $1000/ fine after 1/31/24.

(5) Exception:  may acquire property  after 7/1/23 by devise or foreclosure but must divest within 3 years.

(6) Affidavit:  at time of purchase,  buyer must provide an affidavit of compliance.  Failure to obtain / maintain affidavit doe not (1)  affect title / insurability of title   (2) subject title agent to liability  UNLESS has actual knowledge of violation

(7) Foreclosure:  agricultural land in violation of this law can be foreclosed. 

(e) Proceeds paid to any lienholders,  then applied to fines under this law,  the to court costs, and lastly to the owner.

(f) Dept of Agriculture may see an ex parte order of seizure on a showing of a “clear and present danger” to the state.

(8) Violation is a 3^rd degree felony

(9)  A Seller knowingly violating this section commits a 1^st degree misdemeanor.

692.205 Inapplicability to Diplomatic Purposes. This part does not apply to a foreign principal that acquires real property for diplomatic purposes allowed by the Federal Government.

Emotional Support Animals

Tags

760, discrimination, emotional support, florida, LANDLORD, TENANT

Title XLIV CIVIL RIGHTS Chapter 760 DISCRIMINATION IN THE TREATMENT OF PERSONS; MINORITY REPRESENTATION View Entire Chapter

760.27 Prohibited discrimination in housing provided to persons with a disability or disability-related need for an emotional support animal.— (1) DEFINITIONS.—As used in this section, the term: (a) “Emotional support animal” means an animal that does not require training to do work, perform tasks, provide assistance, or provide therapeutic emotional support by virtue of its presence which alleviates one or more identified symptoms or effects of a person’s disability. (b) “Housing provider” means any person or entity engaging in conduct covered by the federal Fair Housing Act or s. 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, including the owner or lessor of a dwelling. (2) REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION REQUESTS.—To the extent required by federal law, rule, or regulation, it is unlawful to discriminate in the provision of housing to a person with a disability or disability-related need for, and who has or at any time obtains, an emotional support animal. A person with a disability or a disability-related need must, upon the person’s request and approval by a housing provider, be allowed to keep such animal in his or her dwelling as a reasonable accommodation in housing, and such person may not be required to pay extra compensation for such animal. Unless otherwise prohibited by federal law, rule, or regulation, a housing provider may: (a) Deny a reasonable accommodation request for an emotional support animal if such animal poses a direct threat to the safety or health of others or poses a direct threat of physical damage to the property of others, which threat cannot be reduced or eliminated by another reasonable accommodation. (b) If a person’s disability is not readily apparent, request reliable information that reasonably supports that the person has a disability. Supporting information may include: 1. A determination of disability from any federal, state, or local government agency. 2. Receipt of disability benefits or services from any federal, state, or local government agency. 3. Proof of eligibility for housing assistance or a housing voucher received because of a disability. 4. Information from a health care practitioner, as defined in s. 456.001; a telehealth provider, as defined in s. 456.47; or any other similarly licensed or certified practitioner or provider in good standing with his or her profession’s regulatory body in another state but only if such out-of-state practitioner has provided in-person care or services to the tenant on at least one occasion. Such information is reliable if the practitioner or provider has personal knowledge of the person’s disability and is acting within the scope of his or her practice to provide the supporting information. 5. Information from any other source that the housing provider reasonably determines to be reliable in accordance with the federal Fair Housing Act and s. 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. (c) If a person’s disability-related need for an emotional support animal is not readily apparent, request reliable information that reasonably supports the person’s need for the particular emotional support animal being requested. Supporting information may include: 1. Information identifying the particular assistance or therapeutic emotional support provided by the specific animal from a health care practitioner, as defined in s. 456.001; a telehealth provider, as defined in s. 456.47; or any other similarly licensed or certified practitioner or provider in good standing with his or her profession’s regulatory body in another state. Such information is reliable if the practitioner or provider has personal knowledge of the person’s disability and is acting within the scope of his or her practice to provide the supporting information. 2. Information from any other source that the housing provider reasonably determines to be reliable in accordance with the federal Fair Housing Act and s. 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. (d) If a person requests to keep more than one emotional support animal, request information regarding the specific need for each animal. (e) Require proof of compliance with state and local requirements for licensing and vaccinating each emotional support animal. (3) REQUEST LIMITATIONS.— (a) Notwithstanding the authority to request information under subsection (2), a housing provider may not request information that discloses the diagnosis or severity of a person’s disability or any medical records relating to the disability. However, a person may disclose such information or medical records to the housing provider at his or her discretion. (b) A housing provider may develop and make available to persons a routine method for receiving and processing reasonable accommodation requests for emotional support animals; however, a housing provider may not require the use of a specific form or notarized statement, or deny a request solely because a person did not follow the housing provider’s routine method. (c) An emotional support animal registration of any kind, including, but not limited to, an identification card, patch, certificate, or similar registration obtained from the Internet is not, by itself, sufficient information to reliably establish that a person has a disability or a disability-related need for an emotional support animal. (4) LIABILITY.—A person with a disability or a disability-related need is liable for any damage done to the premises or to another person on the premises by his or her emotional support animal. (5) APPLICABILITY.—This section does not apply to a service animal as defined in s. 413.08. History.—s. 1, ch. 2020-76.   760.29 Exemptions.— (1)(a) [ single family dwelling, rental by the room, or owner occupied four unit ] Nothing in ss. 760.23, 760.25, and 760.27 applies to: 1. Any single-family house sold or rented by its owner, provided such private individual owner does not own more than three single-family houses at any one time. In the case of the sale of a single-family house by a private individual owner who does not reside in such house at the time of the sale or who was not the most recent resident of the house prior to the sale, the exemption granted by this paragraph applies only with respect to one sale within any 24-month period. In addition, the bona fide private individual owner shall not own any interest in, nor shall there be owned or reserved on his or her behalf, under any express or voluntary agreement, title to, or any right to all or a portion of the proceeds from the sale or rental of, more than three single-family houses at any one time. The sale or rental of any single-family house shall be excepted from the application of ss. 760.20-760.37 only if the house is sold or rented: a. Without the use in any manner of the sales or rental facilities or the sales or rental services of any real estate licensee or such facilities or services of any person in the business of selling or renting dwellings, or of any employee or agent of any such licensee or person; and b. Without the publication, posting, or mailing, after notice, of any advertisement or written notice in violation of s. 760.23(3). Nothing in this provision prohibits the use of attorneys, escrow agents, abstractors, title companies, and other such professional assistance as is necessary to perfect or transfer the title. 2. Rooms or units in dwellings containing living quarters occupied or intended to be occupied by no more than four families living independently of each other, if the owner actually maintains and occupies one of such living quarters as his or her residence. (b) For the purposes of paragraph (a), a person is deemed to be in the business of selling or renting dwellings if the person: 1. Has, within the preceding 12 months, participated as principal in three or more transactions involving the sale or rental of any dwelling or interest therein; 2. Has, within the preceding 12 months, participated as agent, other than in the sale of his or her own personal residence, in providing sales or rental facilities or sales or rental services in two or more transactions involving the sale or rental of any dwelling or interest therein; or 3. Is the owner of any dwelling designed or intended for occupancy by, or occupied by, five or more families. (2) Nothing in ss. 760.20-760.37 prohibits a religious organization, association, or society, or any nonprofit institution or organization operated, supervised, or controlled by or in conjunction with a religious organization, association, or society, from limiting the sale, rental, or occupancy of any dwelling which it owns or operates for other than a commercial purpose to persons of the same religion or from giving preference to such persons, unless membership in such religion is restricted on account of race, color, or national origin. Nothing in ss. 760.20-760.37 prohibits a private club not in fact open to the public, which as an incident to its primary purpose or purposes provides lodgings which it owns or operates for other than a commercial purpose, from limiting the rental or occupancy of such lodgings to its members or from giving preference to its members. (3) Nothing in ss. 760.20-760.37 requires any person renting or selling a dwelling constructed for first occupancy before March 13, 1991, to modify, alter, or adjust the dwelling in order to provide physical accessibility except as otherwise required by law. (4)(a) Any provision of ss. 760.20-760.37 regarding familial status does not apply with respect to housing for older persons. (b) As used in this subsection, the term “housing for older persons” means housing: 1. Provided under any state or federal program that the commission determines is specifically designed and operated to assist elderly persons, as defined in the state or federal program; 2. Intended for, and solely occupied by, persons 62 years of age or older; or 3. Intended and operated for occupancy by persons 55 years of age or older that meets the following requirements: a. At least 80 percent of the occupied units are occupied by at least one person 55 years of age or older. b. The housing facility or community publishes and adheres to policies and procedures that demonstrate the intent required under this subparagraph. If the housing facility or community meets the requirements of sub-subparagraphs a. and c. and the recorded governing documents provide for an adult, senior, or retirement housing facility or community and the governing documents lack an amendatory procedure, prohibit amendments, or restrict amendments until a specified future date, then that housing facility or community shall be deemed housing for older persons intended and operated for occupancy by persons 55 years of age or older. If those documents further provide a prohibition against residents 16 years of age or younger, that provision shall be construed, for purposes of the Fair Housing Act, to only apply to residents 18 years of age or younger, in order to conform with federal law requirements. Governing documents which can be amended at a future date must be amended and properly recorded within 1 year after that date to reflect the requirements for consideration as housing for older persons, if that housing facility or community intends to continue as housing for older persons. c. The housing facility or community complies with rules made by the Secretary of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development pursuant to 24 C.F.R. part 100 for verification of occupancy, which rules provide for verification by reliable surveys and affidavits and include examples of the types of policies and procedures relevant to a determination of compliance with the requirements of sub-subparagraph b. Such surveys and affidavits are admissible in administrative and judicial proceedings for the purposes of such verification. (c) Housing may still be considered housing for older persons if: 1. A person who resides in such housing on or after October 1, 1989, does not meet the age requirements of this subsection, provided that any new occupant meets such age requirements; or 2. One or more units are unoccupied, provided that any unoccupied units are reserved for occupancy by persons who meet the age requirements of this subsection. (d) A person is not personally liable for monetary damages for a violation of this subsection if such person reasonably relied in good faith on the application of the exemption under this subsection relating to housing for older persons. For purposes of this paragraph, a person may show good faith reliance on the application of the exemption only by showing that: 1. The person has no actual knowledge that the facility or the community is ineligible, or will become ineligible, for such exemption; and 2. The facility or community has stated formally, in writing, that the facility or community complies with the requirements for such exemption. A county or municipal ordinance regarding housing for older persons may not contravene the provisions of this subsection. (5) Nothing in ss. 760.20-760.37: (a) Prohibits a person engaged in the business of furnishing appraisals of real property from taking into consideration factors other than race, color, national origin, sex, disability, familial status, or religion. (b) Limits the applicability of any reasonable local restriction regarding the maximum number of occupants permitted to occupy a dwelling. (c) Requires that a dwelling be made available to an individual whose tenancy would constitute a direct threat to the health or safety of other individuals or whose tenancy would result in substantial physical damage to the property of others. (d) Prohibits conduct against a person because such person has been convicted by any court of competent jurisdiction of the illegal manufacture or distribution of a controlled substance as defined under chapter 893. History.—ss. 4, 8, ch. 83-221; s. 5, ch. 84-117; s. 5, ch. 89-321; s. 18, ch. 90-275; s. 1, ch. 96-191; s. 1792, ch. 97-102; s. 1, ch. 99-348; s. 4, ch. 2001-143; s. 59, ch. 2003-164; s. 9, ch. 2020-76; s. 4, ch. 2020-153.

Florida Legislature bill to pre-empt local regulation of residential tenancies

Tags

1417, bill, florida, LANDLORD, legislation, preempt, TENANT

House Bill 1417 proposes to preempt any local regulation of residential tenancies in Florida. Additionally the bill proposes to change the notice period for non-renewal of month to month tenancies from fifteen days to thirty days. Lastly the bill modifies any notice period for electing to renew a tenancy of fixed duration from not more than 60 days to not less than 60 days.

Status update:

This bill has passed

CS/HB 1417 (2023) — Residential Tenancies

Passed (or Adopted) by the Senate:

04/28/23 S CS passed; YEAS 29 NAYS 8

04/28/2023 3:34 PM     H     Ordered enrolled

60 day notice of non-renewal must terminate the tenancy at the end of a monthly rental period, not in the middle of one.

Tags

60 day notice, florida, LANDLORD, non-renewal, TENANT

Top of Form

Landlord-tenant — Eviction — Notice — Defects — Notices to terminate month-to-month tenancy are fatally defective for giving less than sixty days’ notice and for attempting to terminate tenancy in middle of monthly period

Landlord filed an Eviction Complaint based on two notices to terminate the Defendant’s month-to-month tenancy.  The duration of the tenancy was a calendar month.

The first notice dated July 22, 2022 informed the Defendant that she had to vacate the property by August 26, 2022, thus providing the Defendant 35 days’ notice.

The second notice, titled a 60-Day Notice, dated September 6, 2022, informed the Defendant that she had to vacate the property by September 22, 2022, thus providing the Defendant only 16 days’ notice.

The complaint was filed September 23, 2022.

A proper and non-defective notice is a statutory condition precedent to filing an eviction action.

A statutory cause of action cannot be commenced until Plaintiff has complied with all conditions precedent. See Ferry Morse Seed Co. v. Hitchcock, 426 So.2d 958 (Fla. 1983).

Section 17-03(a) of the Code of Ordinances of Miami-Dade County, Florida states:

A residential tenancy without a specific duration in which the rent is payable on a monthly basis may be terminated by giving not less than 60 days’ written notice prior to the end of any monthly period.    The parties may not terminate a tenancy in the middle of a monthly period.

Therefore landlord’s case was dismissed.

ALANA OGLESBY v. KIYANCA CRAWFORD. County Court, 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County. Case No. 2022-037939-CC-23. Section ND01. November 1, 2022. Myriam Lehr, Judge. 30 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 631a

Tenants’ failure to give notice of vacating does not forfeit their right to recover their security deposit.

Tags

florida, LANDLORD, security deposit, TENANT

Tenants on a month to month lease left the premises  without prior notice and demanded return of their security deposit. The Landlord, also without notice, only returned a portion of the deposit. The Tenants sued for the remainder.

Whether a landlord is permitted to retain or required to return a tenant’s security deposit depends upon the interplay between sections 83.49(3)(a) and 83.49(5), Florida Statutes (2018). Section 83.49(3)(a), Florida Statutes governs the landlord’s duty:

(a) Upon the vacating of the premises for termination of the lease, if the landlord does not intend to impose a claim on the security deposit, the landlord shall have 15 days to return the security deposit together with interest if otherwise required, or the landlord shall have 30 days to give the tenant written notice by certified mail to the tenant’s last known mailing address of his or her intention to impose a claim on the deposit and the reason for imposing the claim.

Section 83.49(5), Florida Statutes governs the tenant’s duty:

(5) Except when otherwise provided by the terms of a written lease, any tenant who vacates or abandons the premises prior to the expiration of the term specified in the written lease, or any tenant who vacates or abandons premises which are the subject of a tenancy from week to week, month to month, quarter to quarter, or year to year, shall give at least 7 days’ written notice by certified mail or personal delivery to the landlord prior to vacating or abandoning the premises which notice shall include the address where the tenant may be reached. Failure to give such notice shall relieve the landlord of the notice requirement of paragraph (3)(a) but shall not waive any right the tenant may have to the security deposit or any part of it.

Here, neither the Landlord nor Tenants abided by their statutory notice obligations. What happens under these circumstances? If the tenant fails to advise the landlord that they are vacating a month-to-month tenancy (as happened here), subsection (5) of the statute says, “[f]ailure to give such notice shall relieve the landlord of the notice requirement of paragraph (3)(a) but shall not waive any right the tenant may have to the security deposit or any part of it.” The landlord’s notice obligation is forgiven — but the tenant does not forfeit the right to lay claim to all or part of their deposit. See Plakhov v. Serova, 126 So. 3d 1221, 1223 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) [37 Fla. L. Weekly D2520a].

JOHN SERAK and LAUREN SERAK, Appellants, v. SANDRINE VAN VLIERBERGHE d/b/a CASA PARAISO, LLC., Appellee. Circuit Court, 11th Judicial Circuit (Appellate) in and for Miami-Dade County. Case No. 2019-263-AP-01. L.T. Case No. 2017-008203-SP-26. July 22, 2020. An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County 28 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 457a. Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2806SERA

In Security Deposit case, where both parties prevailed on significant issues, the Court has discretion to not award attorneys fees to the prevailing party

Tags

attorney fees, florida, LANDLORD, prevailing party, security deposit, TENANT

Plaintiff, tenant’s, sued  to recover his $2300 security deposit, and Defendan counterclaimed for $6,227.79 in damages.

The Court ruled after a non-jury trial that Plaintiff failed to prove his cause and shall go without day. Landlord was entitled to retain the full security deposit plus pet fee. The court also denied damages on the counterclaim. The court ruled that Defendants are the prevailing parties.

The Court denied awarding Defendant attorneys fees citing Marcosky v. Intesso, 8 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 273a (Circuit Court 9th Judicial Circuit in its appellate capacity, 2001) in which tenant sued to recover his entire security deposit based on landlord’s failure to properly claim it by certified mail within 30 days and that landlord had also failed to return the unclaimed portion of the security deposit. The court found that as Tenant had failed to provide a forwarding address as required under §83.49(5) landlord was relieved of the obligation to make his claim by certified mail within 30 days, and thus landlord prevailed on the claim to recover the entire deposit. The court further ruled that tenant prevailed on his claim to recover the unclaimed portion of the security deposit. As each party had prevailed on one of the two significant issue, the Circuit court in its appellate capacity ruled that the trial court had not abused its discretion in in denying attorneys fees and costs to each party.

The court cited Checci v. Gordon 524 So.2d 501 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1988) holding that where both parties prevail on separate issues, neither party is entitled to attorneys fees and costs.

DELONG, v. LANDONI, et al., County Court, 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County. Case No. COCE21052244, Division 54. April 22, 2022. Florence Taylor Barner, Judge. Counsel: Alexander P. Johnson, Law Office of Alexander Patrick Johnson, PL, Fort Lauderdale, for Plaintiff. Alexander E. Borell, The Law Offices of Alexander E. Borell, West Palm Beach, for Defendants.  30 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 129b

Miami-Dade Enacts Tenant Bill of Rights May 16, 2022

Tags

dade, discrimnination, eviction, florida, LANDLORD, miami, prohibited practices, TENANT, tenants bill of rights

On May 3rd Miami Dade County has enacted a tenant bill of rights taking effect May 13, 2022.  This ordinance creates an office of housing advocacy, establishes a tenant helpline and website, and  prohibiting unlawful practice by landlords.

You should direct your questions about the new Tenants’ Bill of Rights and the new ordinance that requires 60-day written notices to tenants when the rent is increasing more than 5% or when terminating their month-to-month tenancies. Their contact information is: housingadvocacy@miamidade.gov and (786) 469-4545.

Sec. 17-167 Unlawful Practices

It shall be unlawful for any landlord to:

(1)(a) interrupt any utility service, whether of not the service is under the control of or paid by the landlord.

(1)(b) Attempt to collect rent, evict, or threaten to evict, a tenant from a condominium where landlord is delinquent in paying any monetary obligation to the condominium association and the association has demanded the tenant remit the rent to the association  to satisfy the delinquency.

(1)(c) Discrimination, including race, color, religion ancestry, national origin, sex, pregnancy, age, disability, marital status, familial status, gender identity,  gender expression, sexual orientation, status as a victim of domestic or dating violence or stalking,  or source of income. Victims of discrimination may file a complaint or sue the landlord.

(2)  Additional tenant rights. it shall be unlawful for the landlord to”

(2)(a) fail to provide tenant with the tenant’s bill of rights

(2)(b) fail to provide tenant a notice from a government or condominium association that the building may be unsafe within 14 days of receipt of such notice.

(2)(c) provide notice to a month to month tenant of a change of ownership 60 days prior to or concurrent with such change.

(2)(d) inquire about a prospective tenant’s eviction history until  they have been determined otherwise qualified.

(2)(e) Evict or threaten to evict  a tenant who has made repairs and deducted their cost from the rent if

               (i) tenant has issued landlord a 7 day notice to perform the repairs.

               (ii) Landlord has failed to make the repairs

               (iii) Tenant has obtained at least 2 estimates for the repairs.

               (iv) Tenant has receipts and before and after pictures of their repairs

(2)(f) Evict or threaten to evict  a tenant for use of the tenant information hotline.  A rebuttable presumption of retaliation exists within 60 days of tenant using the hotline.

(2)(g) Retaliate, coerce, intimidate, threaten, harass a tenant or someone who aids a tenant , in the exercise of any right under the tenant bill of rights.

(2)(g) The section applies to lease extensions and renewals.

Sec 17-168 Notice of Tenants’ Rights

• Landlord shall provide tenant a Notice of Tenants’ Rights within 10 days of the commencement or renewal of a tenancy.
• Tenant shall sign and date receipt of tenant rights within 7 days.
• Landlord shall retain the receipt until 60 days after the end of the tenancy.
• The above shall apply to the renewal of the tenancy.
• The Office of Housing Advocacy may request copies of the receipt from the landlord.
• The Office of Housing Advocacy shall provide a downloadable copy of the tenants’ bill of rights in English, Spanish and creole
• If tenant does not sign receipt of tenants’ bill of rights, landlord shall document their attempts to get the tenant’s signature.

Sec 17-169 Tenant Information Helpline and Website. The Mayor shall establish a tenant helpline (786-469-4545) , publish it on the county website and in the tenants’ bill of rights, and shall include additional tenant resource information and downloadable Florida Bar forms in English, Spanish, and Creole.ties undertaken pursuant to the tenants’ bill of rights.

Landlord-tenant – Damage to premises

Tags

damage, eviction, florida, LANDLORD, TENANT, wear and tear

Hairspray

This case involves a claim of damages to a hair salon occurring during a month-to-month tenancy pursuant to a written lease.

Under the lease agreement, the Defendant “agree[d] to accept the premises in their present condition, and at the time of leaving premises will be the same or better conditions.” Additionally, the agreement provided that at the time of signing the agreement, the Defendant acknowledged that the “premises are in good clean condition.” The evidence demonstrated that the Defendant and his workers left extensive hair dye stains over much of the walls and doors, well beyond what one might be consider ordinary wear and tear. Additionally, the terms of the written agreement required the Defendant to put the premises back in the condition at the inception of the lease.  This the Defendant did not do, resulting in a painting expense of $2,350.00.

Plaintiff produced evidence of damaged equipment, but not competent evidence of the amount it would cost to repair or replace these items. As a result, the Court can award no more than $10.00 in nominal damages.

The Court finds that the Plaintiff’s evidence is insufficient for the Court to conclude that there was an agreement for the Defendant to pay for the use of styling products or their costs.

DILENIA PEREZ, v. BRANDON ALI SHERMAN, County Court, Broward County. Case No. COCE21066435, January 13, 2022. Robert W. Lee, Judge. 29 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 778a

Supreme Court overturns eviction moratorium

Tags

eviction, LANDLORD, moratorium, overturned, supreme court, TENANT

Cite as: 594 U. S. ____ (2021) 1

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

No. 21A23

ALABAMA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS, ET AL. v. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL.

ON APPLICATION TO VACATE STAY

[August 26, 2021] PER CURIAM.

Plaintiffs obtained a judgment from the U. S. District Court for the District of Columbia vacating the CDC moratorium on the ground that it is unlawful. But the District Court stayed its judgment while the Government pursued an appeal. The Supreme Court now vacates that stay reasoning that the original authority for the CDC to issue an eviction moratorium stemmed from The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act to alleviate burdens caused by the burgeoning COVID–19 pandemic. Pub. L. 116–136, 134 Stat. 281 of passed March 2020 imposing a 120 day eviction moratorium for properties that participated in federal assistance programs or were subject to federally backed loans. §4024, id., at 492–494.

Congress then extended the moratorium to January 2021 as part of the second COVID–19 relief Act. §502, 134 Stat. 2078–2079.  As that expired, the CDC  took matters into its own hands, extending its moratorium through March, then again through June, and ultimately through July. 86 Fed. Reg. 8020, 16731, 34010 without a supporting act of Congress.

Plaintiffs sued to enjoin the CDC’s unilateral extension of the moratorium in the U. S. District Court for the District of Columbia and won on summary judgment.  But the court stayed its order pending appeal,  reasoning that even though the Government had not shown a substantial likelihood of success, it did make a lesser showing of a “serious legal question on the merits.”

On appeal to the US Supreme Court, they declined to vacate the stay JUSTICE KAVANAUGH reasoning that because the CDC planned to end the moratorium in only a few weeks, and because that time would allow for additional and more orderly distribution of congressionally appropriated rental assistance funds, the balance of equities justified leaving the stay in place.  THOMAS, ALITO, GORSUCH, and BARRETT dissenting.

When the CDC again unilaterally extended the stay to October 3, 2021the Plaintiffs returned to the Federal District Court to vacate the stay, which it declined to do. 

That was appealed to the US Supreme Court which reasoned If a federally imposed eviction moratorium is to continue, Congress must specifically authorize it.   Further the balance of harms had shifted in that the government had additional months to distribute rental assistance and the harm to the Plaintiffs continued to increase.  Therefore the stay of the District Court’s order overturning the moratorium is vacated.