AMANDA LOPEZ

v.

ATLANTIC AWNINGS CORP

An appeal fi'om on County Court of _Miami-Dada .Co1ml;y, Florida; PATRICIA MARINOJ PEDRAZA, Judge. . - _ A Amanda' Lopez Pro So ' ' _ Atlantic Awnings, Corp. c/o/Jose A. Suarez, Registered Agent . _ Before CELESTE H. MUIR, RONALD DRESNICK, and SCOTTM. BBRNSTEIN, JJ. Per Curiam. THIS CAUSE is before this court upon an appeal ofa County Court order granting tho Appolloo, Atlantic Awnings, C01-p., the return of its security doposit minus pro-rated rent Based on a do novo review of the trial court's dooision, we am reversing the County Court’: order and nemanding this matter to allowtho County Court to tako measures consistent with this opinion. Thisappoalstomsfi-omaoommerolalloaso agreemontbetwoenAmandaLopoz, whoisthe landlord of a commercial warehouse located in Miami, and her tonnnt, Atlantic Awnings, Corp. On March 18, 2008, Atlantic Awnings, C01-p._ notified Ms. by letter, that the company. Page 1 ofs _ w . .._-.~......__. __ E | J I i . a i i I | [*2] --@1i ~m"r "—:~':\.

| I E will be terminating the lease and vacating the warehouse premises by April 30, 2008. On May 18, 2008, Ms. Lopez timely sent a Notice ofClaim which notified Atlantic Awnings Corp that a portion ofthe $2500 security deposit would be withheld and applied towards the damages made bythe tenant to the premises, and applied towards rent for the 2-day period heldovea alter the lease ended. The notice delineated the items damaged, hut omitted the cost to repair these items. The notice, however, did provide.that estimates for the repairs were pending and would be forwarded in writing when finalized. On June 25, 2008, Ms. Lopez sent a subsequent noticeof-claim letter to Atlantic Awnings, Corp. which itemized the costs of the damages claimed. Shortly thereafter a check was issued to Atlantic Awnings, Corp in the amount of $869.12 reflecting the remainder of the security deposit after deducting the costs for repairs and rent. Atlantic Awnings, Corp., contesting the amount deducted from the security deposit for the damages alleged, filed suit against Ms. Lopez. In a non-jury trial held on November 24, 2008, the County Court ruled in fayor of Atlantic Awnings, Corp. The court determined that Notice ofClaim did not comply with the strict requirements of §83.49 ofthe Florida Statutes, which requires the landlord's notice to state with specificity the amount of the deposit being withheld by the landlord. flhepcourt noted “[a]lth0l1gh pas. Lopez] eventually complied with the statute, the compliance was ottlltide the 30 day time period allowed by law.” (Record, at 49-51). The court Me. Lopez topay Atlantic Awnings, Corp. a principal amotmt of $2,397.48 pluscourt costs. Ms. Lopez filed the pending appeal appealing the County Court's ruling. The issue on appeal is whether the County Court erred in its ruling and application of the statutory provisions governing security deposits. We find the County Court did err in applying §83.49, Fla. Stat. (2003) as the controlling authority. t Section 83.49, titled “Deposit Money or Advance Rent; Duty ofLandlord and Tenant,” as cited by the trial court and set forth under the Florida Landlord Tenant Act, applies only to residential leases. This statutory provision, which requires a residential landlord to provide the tenant with a written itemization ofcosts and expenses assessed against the security deposit, within 30 days P8£§2of5 [*3] <1 i T i= ofthe end of the-tenancy, has no counterpart tmder the Ac't’s provisions relating to commercial tenancies. The organizational structure of Chapter 83, governing landlord-tenant transactions in general, segregates residential tenancies from non-residential tenancies. The underlying purposefir this statutory framework is to differentiate commercial leases from residential leases. Specifically, provisions governing “residential tenancies” are set forth in §83.40 through '§83.682,' which are referenced esAPart I_I of the Florida Landlord Tenant Act. Provisions governing “non-residential tenancies” are set forth in §83.00l through §83.38, which are referenced as Part I' of the Act. ' Part II of the Act specifically concerns landlord-tenant relationships under rental agreements for residential purposes. Part II does not apply to rental agreements made for commercial, industrial, agricultural or any purpose other than residential. 83.41, Fla. Stnt. (2003). In contrast, Part I applies to all non-residential tenancies and all other tenancies not governed by Part II, §_83.00l, Fla. Stat. (1973). _ As articulated in 472-So. 2d 1210, 1215-1216 (Fla. lst DCA 1985), this division is the result of the culmination of a 1973 comprehensive study ofFlorlda’s lendlordtenant laws by the Florida Law Revision Cotmcii. Council’: report disclosed three defects‘ in the then-existing law which included the absence of_a “differentiartion between commercial tenancies and residential tenancies despite the substantial inequality in the respective bargaining positions ofthe landlord and residential tenant . . .” The Council noted, under the existing laws, “the [landlord-tenant] relationship was treated as n cotnmercial transaction between coequsl businessmen and ignored the reality that the residential tenant was merely a consumer. . . in need of special protection . . .” 'fi., at 1215-I216. The Council proposed legislation for the expressed purpose of changing and curing the inequities ofexisting common law principles governing landlord tenant law asit pertained to residential leases. I51. In 1973, the legislature enacted the Florida Residential Landlord Tenant Act, codified as Part ll, §§84.40 to 83.682. Pagoii of5 [*4] -:....<-_.-. —l_.—-:- r I I L l I -.4. -.-._.._:n._._._. ‘ t i | Er i l l P t [ I ' v {I Although in the early 19708, Florida transformed residential landlord-tenant law to address common abuses in the residential lease context, commercial lease lawswere not mended to the degree ofresidential tenancies. As eresult, statutory protections afforded to a residential tenant are not accorded to acommercial tenant. ' Therefore, while §83.49, requiring a residential landlord to state with specificity the atnctmt of the security deposit beingwithhfild, is designed to deter the residential itmdloltl filtlm arbitrarily withholding the security deposit, falsely charging pre-existing damages to the security deposit, or leaving the residential tenant without sufficient means to validate or challenge specific charges; no suchprotections exist under common law for commercial tenancies. This ls based on the premise that parties to a commercial lease are arms-length bargainers. Thus, security deposit provisions are essentially left for negotiation businessmen with the acumento negotiate the terms ofthe lease on an equal footing. ' V » .. ;.1 . _Si_nce common law concepts still apply to parties of a commercial lease, commercial are not subject to the limitations on security deposits on residential leases. In particnlar, Florida,law imposes no duty on a commercial landlord to provide the kind ofnotice required ofa residential landlord. . t I - ' Therefore, absent a lease agreement to the contrary, a commercial landlord is not obligated tmder Florida Lawto provide a claim ofnotice. Based‘ch areview ofthe terms ofthe commercial lease agreement between Ms. Lopez and Atlantic Awnings, Corp., the lease does not address the landlord’s obligations or the tenant’s rights to an advance notice of costs and expenses assessed against the security deposit-. The lease agreement only addresses the amount of the deposit, whether the deposit will be kept in a separate account or comminglcd, whether the deposit will accrue interest, the circumstances under which the landlord may retain all or any part of the deposit, when and whether the deposit will be returned to the tenant, and the authority to transfer and assign the deposit to a successor landlord. (Record, at‘_2l - Lease Agreement, 1 39). Page 4 of5 ,-»- I i| [*5] Since there are no advance-nofice provisions in the lease agreement regarding claims against the aecmity deposit, the sécurity deposit may be used by Ms. Lopez to offset damages to the pmmisas and forrent owed, without notifying Atlantic Awnings in advance. ‘ ~ We thercforé find the County Court erred in its ruling requlrlng the landlord to remit the fill! security depositto the tenant. Accordingly, the County Court's decision is reversed. Qgnmgmmwh . | ~ -1 -:1 " - __._.___ __.,.____ cBiE°§TEH.MUlR Korma nnnsmcx scowmnnnnsmm ~ . l(l3/z¢w..

V.

1,. ;?..,3__ 00: Atlanflo Awninga, Corp. do/Jose A. Suarez . ~ ' Amanda L01>oz,Pm So. ' Page 5 of5