The courts have consistently held that successive notices cancel out all prior notices.
In Hyde v. Brennan County Court, 3rd Judicial Circuit in and for Columbia County. Case No. 06-100-CC. March 1, 2006, 13 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 822b, the landlord issued three successive 15 day notices of termination of tenancy. The first terminating the tenancy in January, the second terminating the tenancy in February, and the third purporting to cancel the second notice and reinstate the first notice. The court ruled that each notice cancelled all previous notices, and as the third notice was issued only six days prior to the end of the January rental period, it was defective.
Similarly the courts have ruled that successive 3 day notices cancel out all prior 3 day notices. Chandler v. Maxwell, 4 Fla. L. Weekly Supp 279a, (Palm Beach County Court, 1996), citing Cummings v. Giles, 34 Fla. Supp. 2d 117 (Broward County Court, 1989); See also J.H. Floyd Sunshine Village v. Woods, 8 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 460a (Sarasota County Court, April 19, 2001)
The court has also ruled that you can not combine a 3 day notice for non-payment of rent with a 7-day notice of lease violation into one notice. In RICHARDSON, vs. GALLAGHER,. [County Court, 3rd Judicial Circuit in and for Columbia County. Case No. 08-460-CC. May 27, 2008. Tom Coleman, Judge. 15 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 819a], the landlord issued standard 3 day notice but struck-out the pre-printed words “BEHIND IN RENT” in the subheading of the Notice and wrote in “destruction and missing property.” The body of the Notice reads in part: “YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT YOU ARE INDEBTED TO ME IN THE SUM OF – – — – – –DOLLARS. . . .”, thereby indicating that there was no rent due at the time the Notice was delivered. the Notice alleges “destruction and missing property.” This language is not appropriate in a three (3) day notice. “Destruction and missing property” is properly addressed by a seven (7) day notice as described in F.S. §85.56(2). The combining of 3 and 7 day language into one notice rendered it confusing. Confusing notices are defective and cannot terminate a tenancy.
Where the landlord posted and mailed the 3 day notice to the tenant, the court ruled that the mailed notice was the successive notice and cancelled out the posted notice. As the mailed notice did not add five extra days for the tenant to respond by mail, the court ruled that notice defective. Judgment for tenant. AARON vs. GOODWIN , County Court, 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County. Case No. COSO-00-00376 (60). February 25, 2000. Sharon L. Zeller, Judge.
The court has also ruled that the successive notice principle applies where a landlord issued a 15 day notice to terminate tenancy followed by a 3 day notice demanding payment of rent. In SAMMONS vs. FANKHAUSER [ County Court for Broward County. Case No. 98-7282 COWE (80). March 17, 1999. Steven G. Shutter, Judge], landlord gave tenant a Notice to Terminate Tenancy dated October 24, 1998, and purporting to terminate the tenancy on December 1, 1998. Then on November 9, 1998 landlord gave a Three Day Notice to Pay Rent or Deliver Possession demanding payment or possession by November 13, 1998. The tenants paid the rent claimed, but did not move out at the end of the lease. When the landlord filed an eviction for holdover, amazingly, the court ruled that 3 day notice cancelled out the 15 day notice, so that the tenancy was never terminated. Judgment for tenant.