RESPONSE TO LETTERS PUBLISHED ON MY ARTICLE TITLED: THE NEED FOR STATUTORY CHANGE TO THE RIGHT TO TERMINATE RESIDENTIAL LEASES IN THE FLORIDA BAR JOURNAL

 

This is a direct response to the letter in the Free Online Library and other publications regarding my article on the proposals to amend the Florida Landlord Tenant Statute to make sure no arbitrary non-renewal of leases occur in the State of Florida. Please refer to my article published in the Florida Bar Journal, January 2008, Volume 82, No. 1, Page 5 (www.floridabar.org)

Thank you.

Roshani M. Gunewardene 

Attorney

 

RESPONSE TO LETTERS PUBLISHED ON MY ARTICLE TITLED "THE NEED FOR STATUTORY CHANGE TO THE RIGHT TO TERMINATE RESIDENTIAL LEASES" IN THE FLORIDA BAR JOURNAL 

 

.

 

First the authors of the various letters and posts raise concerns about my proposal affecting "middle class people who saved up enough to put a deposit on a second home as an investment for their retirement." The author and I agree in our respect for the legitimate rights and expectations of such persons, who typically rent out single family homes and duplexes. Happily those people have no need for concern regarding this proposed reform suggested in my article. They will not be affected by the most restrictive provisions of our landlord-tenant law. For example, they are exempt from 83.51(2)(a), Florida Statutes in many aspects. They could similarly be exempt from the provisions I have proposed.

 

Second one of the authors warns against the "redistribution of wealth." with my proposal.  A landlord is only required to renew the lease one time and can charge a higher rent if necessary. Therefore, there would be no redistribution of wealth. Furthermore, when the landless find themselves receiving high-handed and cruel treatment from landlords, they often demand reforms which may lead to some form of redistribution of wealth. This happened in many parts of the world since there was no legal recourse for tenants. They could point to the failure of legislative and legal reforms in making those demands. The failure to redress grievances leads to some form of redistribution of wealth, usually with dire consequences for all concerned. I modestly propose that law reform is the best protection against such disturbances.

 

There also seems to be some assumption that only "poor" tenants are affected by these arbitrary non-renewals. There have been corporate executives who have also been affected by it. Therefore, that argument is ill-founded.

 

Besides the idea that "no sane person" will engage in an arbitrary business practice is inaccurate. I was prompted to write this article because there were numerous landlords around the State of Florida who were non-renewing tenants who had paid rent on time and honored all conditions of their leases. I witnessed one family that had to move out with all their belongings and how traumatic it was to that family. I personally witnessed the financial and emotional hardship they endured. This made a very strong impression on me to do something about this gross injustice. The elderly lady passed away because of the move and the enormous side-effects on her health shortly after the forced non-renewal.

 

The interesting part of their story was that they had received a "Certificate of Good Tenancy" from their landlord, the apartment complex, that they lived in prior to the non-renewal and there were several vacant units in that apartment. They were willing to pay a higher rent to remain there. Therefore, the non-renewal was certainly nothing but "arbitrary and capricious." See attached web stories aired on a local TV Station.

 

There were single mothers with three or four children and some even infants who were shut out of their rental unit; one was a senior citizen on a fixed income who was a cancer victim, one was a Vietnam Veteran and his wife who was suffering from lupus at the time and non-renewed after 16 years of tenancy at the same apartment complex; another was a young single mother who had two teenage  children who were honor students and were shut out. This family had difficulty locating alternative housing close to their High School and had to change schools. This was basically a disruption of these good students' academic careers. One was interestingly, a former apartment manager who was pregnant when she was suddenly asked to move out with her two small children and husband. She nearly miscarried her baby due to the sudden and forced move. Another was an elderly School bus driver with a disable husband who was forced out after she was given a lease renewal by the management company. That was done by the HOA of that particular property. Another was a lady and her partner who were non-renewed right after a major hurricane. This amounted to cruelty on the part of the landlord and his hired gun.

 

The emotional toll and financial hardship was immense for all these folks.Some of these victims ended up on welfare. We should not permit this to happen. It would be far greater burden for all tax payers if some tenants became homeless due to the arbitrary application of the right to non-renew leases.

 

It is easy for those who look at only one side of the picture to think that private property can be used at the whim and fancy of each and every property owner. Our legislature has rejected that on many scores, particularly with respect to how a unit has to be maintained and security deposit have to be refunded. The common law actually encouraged landlords to keep good tenants like the ones I have highlighted in my article. In the past ten to twenty years, there have been a move by some landlords, sadly most of them apartment complexes, to use the non-renewal clause as a means to terminate tenancies at their whim and fancy.

 

My article does not espouse that a landlord cannot non-renew for a valid business purpose as the common law entitles them to do so. I have listed many examples of when a valid business reason exists and these were all recognized under common law rules. See paragraph 3 on page 50 0f my article. There is no limit on the free market economy and this proposal will actually benefit landlords because they would be keeping tenants who "want to be there" not just those who are "passing by and need a roof over their heads." A landlord would also be benefiting from having the same tenant and getting the same or higher rent from the same unit. There would be less expenses in refurbishing the rental unit for a new tenant or having the unit go vacant. Overall the landlord would be a winner under my proposal.

 

I strongly oppose the idea that my proposal is somehow a seizing of property akin to the former Soviet Union's government seizure of property. Is the writer saying that our common law rules which I actually highlight have been not been followed lately, are akin to Soviet style rules?!! I hope not because this is clearly erroneous and offensive.

 

Common law rules permit a landlord to non-renew if the rental unit is no longer going to be used as a rental property, the property is being sold, condemned or some other way not suitable for rental such as in cases of fire, storms, natural disasters and of course, foreclosure of the property or bankruptcy of the landlord. These were clearly permissible reasons to non-renew. However, if all factors stood the same when the landlord entered into the lease with the tenant, there were no business changes to the landlord's ownership and status of the rental unit, and the tenant honored the lease terms and paid the rent on time, and there was no expectation that they would be non-renewed except for cause, then it would seem unfair for the tenant to be given a 30-60 day notice of non-renewal.The worst thing is that the tenant is not required to be given a reason for the non-renewal. This is where a lot of tension does occur between the parties. That is why the common law recognized that fact and limited the reasons for non-renewal without cause.

 

One of the authors of the letters against my proposal also ask the question if a landlord can force a tenant to remain in the unit even if the tenant wants to leave. Sadly, this is something that many landlords are doing and that is why it seems so unfair to non-renew tenants who want to remain, but force tenants who want to leave, to remain in the rental unit. There have been many large apartment complexes that have been inserting clauses in their leases mandating that tenants cannot break the lease due to death,disability, divorce, separation etc. and a whole host of social reasons. Tenants and their supporters have argued that this type of lease clause is contrary to freedom of contract and basic principles of freedom to live and work where you want to, under our American democratic system. Tenants do not have the same bargaining powers that the landlords do to negotiate leases that omit such draconian clauses. Hence the problem I address.

 

The premise of my article is that common law rules with respect to non-renewal of leases for no cause have been infringed upon by landlords and that is why the legislature needs to amend the landlord-tenant statute to prevent such arbitrary non-renewal of leases.If landlords go back to following the common law, there would be no need for statutory changes. However, that does not seem be happening. I urge everyone to take a long and hard look at how fair and equitable landlord-tenant laws and regulations, makes us all the more prosperous. All I am asking for is fairness towards tenants.

 

I wish to thank all of the readers of my article and opinions. Your comments are welcome and a dialogue needs to get underway on this very important issue.