What Every Condominium Association Needs to Know About Security Deposits
It is standard procedure for many associations, if the authority to do so appears in their declaration or bylaws, to require a security deposit from a prospective tenant.
March 20, 2019 at 09:03 AM
4 minute read
Lately, Eisinger, Brown, Lewis, Frankel & Chaiet has had to resolve many disputes relating to security deposits collected by our condominium associations from tenants who rent from individual unit owners.
It is standard procedure for many associations, if the authority to do so appears in their declaration or bylaws, to require a security deposit from a prospective tenant. This is separate and apart from any other deposit(s) that are paid directly to the landlord (i.e., first, last and security). Both transactions however must abide by guidelines stipulated in the Florida Residential Landlord and Tenant Act, Chapter 83, Florida Statutes.
The purpose for an association to require a security deposit from a renter is to protect against damages to the common elements or association property. The deposit must not exceed the equivalent of one month's rent and be placed into an escrow account which the association is responsible for maintaining.
Florida Statute 718.112(2)(i) provides: “An association may, if the authority to do so appears in the declaration or bylaws, require that a prospective lessee place a security deposit, in an amount not to exceed the equivalent of one month's rent, into an escrow account maintained by the association. The security deposit shall protect against damages to the common elements or association property. Payment of interest, claims against the deposit, refunds and disputes under this paragraph shall be handled in the same fashion as provided in part II of Chapter 83.”
When renting a unit, its typical for a landlord to request first, last and security deposits from a tenant. Instead of having the tenant pay an additional security deposit to the association, the landlord may just have the tenant remit one of those payments to the association as the required “security deposit.”
Oftentimes, however, problems arise when the tenant moves out or is evicted.
When a tenant remits the security deposit to the association, who is rightfully entitled to the deposit when the tenant moves out? Florida law requires that the deposit be returned to the person who issued the check, and no one else including the landlord (unless prior written consent to the contrary is provided). These funds are not reserved to protect a landlord for damages to the interior of its unit and a nonpayment of rent.
If things go sour and the landlord evicts a tenant, or they move out without paying back rent, the landlord may wish to place a claim on the association's deposit. However, the statute prohibits this. An association is only allowed to return the security deposit to the lessee who initially placed the deposit, giving the landlord no recourse.
If a tenant is not responsible for any damage to common elements or association property, then he would be entitled to receive their full security deposit. If, however, the tenant caused damage to any of the common elements or association property, the association must take immediate steps and place a claim on the deposit. Pursuant to Fla. Stat. 83.49, if the association does not intend to impose a claim on the security deposit for damages to the common elements, the association must return the deposit within 15 days. Otherwise, the association has 30 days to provide the tenant written notice by certified mail of its intent to impose a claim upon the deposit and the reason(s) for imposing the claim. If the association does not follow these statutory requirements, the association forfeits its right to retain the deposit and must return the money to the tenant.
Education is key. It is critically important for associations and property managers to be aware of the statutory requirements associated with tenant security deposits. Eisinger Law regularly advises associations on how to establish strict guidelines for handling security deposits and requiring that the deposit check be issued only by the tenant and not the landlord or any other third party.
Claims against the deposit, refunds and disputes upon these deposits are handled pursuant to Chapter 83, Florida Statutes.
Carolina Sznajderman Sheir is an associate at Eisinger, Brown, Lewis, Frankel & Chaiet. She focuses her practice on real estate law, community association law, commercial litigation and developer representation. Contact her at [email protected].
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllData Breaches, Increased Regulatory Risk and Florida’s New Digital Bill of Rights
7 minute readNavigating Florida's Products Liability Law: Defective Products, Warnings and the Pursuit of Justice
6 minute readNavigating Florida Property Insurance Claims in a Post-Fee-Shifting World
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250