3

83.49 Deposit money or advance rent; duty of landlord and tenant.—

(3)(d) Compliance with this section by an individual or business entity authorized to conduct business in this state, including Florida-licensed real estate brokers and sales associates, constitutes compliance with all other relevant Florida Statutes pertaining to security deposits held pursuant to a rental agreement or other landlord-tenant relationship. Enforcement personnel shall look solely to this section to determine compliance. This section prevails over any conflicting provisions in chapter 475 and in other sections of the Florida Statutes, and shall operate to permit licensed real estate brokers to disburse security deposits and deposit money without having to comply with the notice and settlement procedures contained in s. 475.25(1)(d).

I presume "constitutes compliance with ..." means that no other statute is relevant to determining legality with regard to deposit money in a landlord/tenant dispute. I just want to be sure. Why did it come about? Also: who is "Enforcement personnel"?

Improve this question

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
1

I presume "constitutes compliance with ..." means that no other statute is relevant to determining legality with regard to deposit money in a landlord/tenant dispute. I just want to be sure.

It does, except, of course, that the Constitution of the State of Florida and the U.S. Constitution override this statute, as does any relevant federal statute or treaty.

For example, even if this statute prescribes a court process for resolving deposit money in a landlord/tenant dispute, this can't override the Federal Arbitration Act if the lease has an otherwise valid arbitration clause.

Why did it come about? Also: who is "Enforcement personnel"?

There are multiple statutes governing the disposition of trust funds, including one expressly identified in the statute in Chapter 475, pertaining to real estate brokers.

Enforcement personnel is primarily a reference to state officials who enforce occupational/industry licensing requirements such as those applicable to real estate brokers, or something similar.

The idea is that landlord-tenant deposits are governed by landlord-tenant law rather than real estate broker rules, and that a real estate broker shouldn't be punished by real estate broker licensing enforcement officials for holding landlord-tenant deposits in accordance with landlord-tenant law rather than in accordance with the law that applies to other deposits (e.g. earnest money deposits) held by real estate brokers.

The reference to "in other sections of the Florida Statutes" is really just an afterthought to a provision designed primarily to prevent real estate brokers from facing more strict landlord-tenant deposit obligation than landlords who are not real estate brokers, to cover other people (e.g. attorneys or bank trust departments that are landlords) which might otherwise face conflicting obligations with respect to trust funds similar to those faces by real estate brokers.

Improve this answer
10
  • I don't know how to interpret "it does" in your first §.
    – Erwann
    Commented May 22, 2023 at 19:54
  • 2
    @Erwann It means what you presume it means.
    – ohwilleke
    Commented May 22, 2023 at 21:44
  • Why didn't they just purge the conflicting statutes? (rhetorical) Officials who enforce occupational/industry standards, that would be DBPR/FREC.
    – Erwann
    Commented May 22, 2023 at 22:06
  • @Erwann Because the standards should continue to apply in other circumstances like earnest money deposits.
    – ohwilleke
    Commented May 22, 2023 at 22:18
  • 4
    @Erwann: You don't have to buy it for it to be correct. What you propose would involve a single well maintained legal code, which the US and its constituent states famously do not have. They could research every applicable law and explicitly modify them, and while that might be better for society, they chose the easy route of an "override" instead. The conflicting provisions in other statues come about by saying "every X must do Y" in one law, and "every A must do B" in another law, and not foreseeing that someone might be required to do both "Y and B" where Y and B are mutually exclusive.
    – sharur
    Commented Jun 21, 2023 at 22:10

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .