Florida Statute s. 83.232 Designed to Benefit Commercial Landlord

Florida Statute s. 83.232 Designed to Benefit Commercial Landlord

Spread the love

In an earlier posting I discussed what can happen if a commercial tenant fails to pay rent into the court’s registry during the pendency of an eviction complaint per Florida Statute s. 83.232. This statute is designed to benefit the commercial landlord by requiring the tenant to continue to pay rent by depositing that rent into the court’s registry every month when the rent is due.

images

Another example is set forth in Poal WK Taft, LLC v. Johnson Medical Center Corp., 45 So.3d 37 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). In this commercial landlord / tenant dispute, the tenant owed the landlord in excess of $50,000 under two leases for office suites.   The landlord sued the tenant and filed a motion pursuant to s. 83.232 for the tenant to deposit rents into the court’s registry. The court granted the motion and required the tenant to deposit monthly rent into the registry; however, the order did not specify the date for the rent to be deposited (although such rent would be due pursuant to the terms of the lease under the statute).   During a month the tenant failed to timely pay rent per the lease, the landlord moved for default and for a writ of possession of the leased premises. The trial court deferred ruling at which point the landlord filed a motion for a writ of mandamus to compel the trial court to issue the default and writ of possession. The Fourth District granted the motion for a writ of mandamus explaining:

 

Where the court enters an order requiring payment, those payments are also to be made as they accrue, “the time of accrual being as set forth in the lease.” Rent accrues on its due date.

***

Where the tenant has not paid the rent into the registry of the court in accordance with court order and the statute, the landlord is entitled to a writ of possession without further hearing. The trial court exercises no discretion, and the landlord is entitled to the issuance of the writ of possession as a matter of right. Although the result may seem harsh in a case like this, there is no equitable exception to the statute.

Poal WK Taft, LLC, 45 So.3d at 39 (internal citations omitted).

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.