Denial of Access by the Resident
by Michael Geo. F. Davis, Attorney at Law


While the landlord may understand that the safety of the community and the property of the landlord and the other residents require the landlord to have the ability to access each resident's premises, a resident may only see the landlord's need for access as the intrusion into the resident's private life. The landlord must be prepared to respond appropriately under Florida law and the lease to the resident who denies access.

Avoid the emotional response

A resident may deny access for many reasons: the mistaken belief that he has the absolute right to control who enters the premises, the insistence that his privacy is being invaded, to prevent the landlord from learning of or following up on lease noncompliances, or just a general, uncooperative nature. Whatever the reason, the landlord should avoid reacting with an emotional response. The landlord should remember that, in any litigation by the landlord to enforce the right of access, a judge will consider the landlord the "professional". Whatever the judge thinks of the resident's behavior, the landlord will not be able to justify his improper actions because he was "angry" and had "the right to enter".

Denial of access by changing the locks or installation of a security system

Florida law does not prohibit the resident from changing the locks on the premises or installing a security system. The landlord's lease may prohibit this directly or by language prohibiting unauthorized alterations. Florida courts would generally consider the resident in compliance with the lease provision, if the resident gives the landlord keys to any new locks or the code to the security system. If the resident refuses to provide the landlord with the keys or code, than the resident is denying the landlord access to the premises. If the resident has damaged the premises by installing the new locks or security system, that is a separate violation of Florida law and most likely the lease, if it includes a provision against damaging the premises. The landlord may give the resident a Seven-Day Notice of Noncompliance with Opportunity to Cure for the damage to the landlord's property and/or the unauthorized alteration to the premise. The resident may wish to remove his locks or security system upon vacating. If the resident fails to return the premises to its move-in condition, the landlord may hold the resident liable for any damages in excess of ordinary wear and tear, including the appropriate deduction from the security deposit.

Repair requests and the denial of access

A common issue is the resident's repair request and subsequent denial of access. This often is the first step in the resident's plan to withhold rent or terminate the lease for the landlord's alleged breach of the lease for failure to repair. The landlord must treat denial of access for repairs seriously. It will not be sufficient to simply tell the judge in a later eviction hearing that the resident did not provide access to the landlord's only attempt to repair. The resident will no doubt testify that he made numerous repair requests that went unmet and was readily available for repair access. In repair refusal cases it is particularly important to respond immediately when access is denied, to make attempts to arrange a mutually convenient time, to document the attempts, to confirm in writing to the resident any repair appointments, to bring a witness to the repair attempts (for later supporting court testimony) and to serve a Seven-Day Notice of Noncompliance With Opportunity to Cure. The landlord wants to present the court with written documentation of his attempts to comply with Florida law and the lease, not rely on a contest of stories in the courtroom.

Unreasonable restrictions

The resident's insistence on unreasonable restrictions is a form of denial of access. A resident's request the he or an adult member of his household be home when the landlord or a vendor enters is not necessarily unreasonable. His refusal to cooperate in arranging mutually convenient access times and dates within normal working hours and days is unreasonable. "Mutually convenient" does not require the landlord to pay overtime to his employees or additional charges to vendors for abnormal access times, regardless of the resident's work schedule or sleeping habits. The landlord is not required to agree to access when unattended minors are home alone. The landlord can insist that any pets be secured.

The risk of contractual or implied consent

The landlord may rely on a lease provision permitting entry into the premises or rely on the implied consent to enter in response to a repair request or as part of a periodic maintenance program. The landlord's entry when the resident is not home can be justified with several arguments. By signing the lease the resident previously consented to the access set forth in the lease provisions. By requesting repair or accepting periodic maintenance the resident is currently consenting to access. Even if a judge does not believe prior or current consent to have been granted, it would be unreasonable for the resident to deny access upon advance notice. If these arguments fail in court, then problems can arise. Determining when a resident's denial of access is unreasonable is a subjective determination. If a judge believes the resident did not grant prior or current consent, and that the resident was not being unreasonable in denying access, the landlord's entry may be found unjustified and in breach of the lease and, possibly a trespass.


The landlord should not forget that one solution in dealing with a resident who is unreasonably denying access is to timely serve a notice of non-renewal to that resident. While this may not address the immediate problems with access, it will prevent them from continuing into another lease term.

Seven-Day Notice of Noncompliance with Opportunity to Cure

If the resident is physically blocking access, the landlord can consider seeking injunctive relief, if an urgent need for access exists. Otherwise, the appropriate response to the unreasonable denial of access is to serve the resident with a Seven-Day Notice of Noncompliance with Opportunity to Cure for the denial of access, but this process requires a paper trail. Written notice to the tenant that access is being sought for a particular purpose is the first step. When access is subsequently denied, the Seven-Day Notice of Noncompliance with Opportunity to Cure should provide details as to why access was unreasonably denied.

Seven-Day Termination Notice

The landlord should continue his efforts to arrange a mutually convenient time for access while the seven day period runs on the Seven-Day Notice of Noncompliance with Opportunity to Cure. After the notice expires, the landlord can provide new written notice seeking access for a particular purpose. If the resident continues to deny access, the landlord should consult with his attorney. If the attorney believes there is a sufficiently documented case, the landlord can serve a Seven-Day Termination Notice.

Document, document, document

Nothing is more important than documentation to a successful non-renewal case, or a Seven-Day Termination case, when the case is challenged as baseless, discriminatory or retaliatory. The landlord will want to have more than his recollection of all his efforts to work with the resident. A well documented file is a necessity. The landlord should confirm in writing, with letters, memos and notes in the file, every attempt that he made to schedule a mutually convenient time and date, every scheduled entry and its refusal, as well as any conversations with the resident. If a vendor is refused entry, the vendor's statement should be in the file, and the vendor should be informed that his testimony in court may be necessary at a later date. Now is the time to learn if the landlord can rely on the vendor voluntarily appearing to testify, if needed.

Consult your attorney

The stakes in an eviction case based on the termination of a lease for denial of access may involve much more than gaining access. It may soon involve liability for thousands of dollars in attorney's fees, since the prevailing party is awarded court costs and attorney's fees. The attorney's input before the landlord attempts to terminate the lease is crucial. Not only can the attorney objectively assess the landlord's case, but he is familiar with the holdings of prior cases and the judicial leanings in the landlord's particular county.


(Back to Top)


Wrongful Evictions
by Brian P. Wolk, Attorney at Law


Florida law specifically and unequivocally labels certain types of eviction actions as unlawful. All too often, property managers and landlords fail to obtain a solid understanding of the law in this area. While not as obvious a topic as security deposits or Three Day Notices, it is nonetheless essential that a landlord diligently adhere to the law in this area. It is very easy to become frustrated with a resident who makes continual repair requests or organizes other residents to question the decisions of management. At that point, the property manager has only one goal in mind: make the resident permanently move. Failing to follow the terms of the lease and Florida law due to frustration with the problem resident could lead to liability under both contract law and tort law, and there can even be criminal law ramifications.

The self-help eviction

The self-help eviction is unlawful in Florida. Florida Statute 83.62 clearly spells out the procedure for restoring possession of the premises to the landlord. Section 83.62 (1) states that, "In an action for possession, after entry of judgment in favor of the landlord, the clerk shall issue a writ to the sheriff describing the premises and commanding the sheriff to put the landlord in possession after 24 hours' notice conspicuously posted on the premises." Further, Florida Statute 83.67 lists in detail prohibited practices that the landlord is specifically not authorized to undertake. Although most landlords understand that they cannot simply change the locks when a resident fails to pay their rent on time, landlords can unexpectedly be sued for an alleged self-help eviction for much less common scenarios.

Self-help and the lockout of the resident

Many years ago, a landlord was not required to gain judicial approval before locking out a resident. Today, it is considered an illegal, self-help eviction if the landlord locks out a resident. Florida Statute 83.67(2) provides the following: "A landlord of any dwelling unit governed by this part shall not prevent the tenant from gaining reasonable access to the dwelling unit by any means, including, but not limited to, changing the locks or using any bootlock or similar device." For example, suppose a landlord wishes to capture the attention of the resident by changing the locks, with the goal of forcing the resident to come into the office and address a delinquent account. The mere act of changing the locks would be considered a self-help eviction. Problems also arise when there are multiple residents, but only one resident requests a lock change. It is recommended that property managers should not change locks unless all residents have put that in writing on one request form.

Self-help and the personal property of the resident

Interestingly, one of the most common forms of self-help eviction occurs when landlords prematurely remove the resident's personal property from the premises. Unless the rental unit has clearly been abandoned, surrendered, or a writ of possession has been executed by the sheriff pursuant to a final judgment of eviction, Florida Statute 83.67 (5) establishes that it is a prohibited practice for the landlord to remove the resident's personal property from the dwelling unit. For example, suppose the resident is in violation of the lease and local code provisions due to storing a barbecue grill on the balcony of the apartment home. Even if the landlord is incurring substantial fines from the city, the landlord may not remove the grill. To do so would be considered a self-help eviction. This type of action could even constitute a criminal law violation. The proper remedy for the landlord in that situation is to serve the resident with a Seven Day Notice to Cure, followed by a Seven Day Notice of Termination if the resident is still not in compliance. In special cases, the landlord may wish to seek injunctive relief. Unfortunately, many property managers who have regained possession of a rental unit subsequently throw out the personal property of the resident, because they mistakenly believed a unit was legally abandoned or could not prove that the apartment home was legally abandoned, find themselves and their owners being dragged into wrongful eviction litigation based on illegal self-help by the landlord. One must always remember that abandonment is defined by the law and frequently has nothing to do with our common sense perception of abandonment.

Penalties for committing a self-help eviction

Florida Statute 83.67 (6) contains the following: "A landlord who violates any provision of this section shall be liable to the tenant for actual and consequential damages or 3 months' rent, whichever is greater, and costs, including attorney's fees. Subsequent or repeated violations that are not contemporaneous with the initial violation shall be subject to separate awards of damages." A reading of the statute makes it clear that the potential amount of liability in a given case can be exceedingly high. For example, suppose the monthly rent is $900, and the landlord illegally throws out the resident's personal property. If the resident's property was valued at $3000, and the resident incurred consequential losses of $5000, the penalty to the landlord if the resident prevailed in court would be $8000 plus attorney's fees and costs. The resident would not be limited to $2700, the three months' rent penalty, because the resident's actual costs and consequential damages were greater than three months' rent.

Constructive evictions

Property managers are often astounded when they find out that they have illegally evicted one of their residents who voluntarily vacated the premises, even when the resident was never told to leave, never received any notices of lease termination on their door, and never had an eviction filed against them. Judges in Florida will allow a resident to break a lease, move out of the rental premises and sue for damages, if those judge rule that there has been a constructive eviction.

Constructive eviction due to the neglect of the leased premises by the landlord

A constructive eviction may take place if the landlord has neglected the leased premises to the point where it is unsafe or unfit for use by the resident for the purposes for which it was leased. Simply put, if the landlord fails to make needed repairs to the rental premises, the landlord will become vulnerable to a constructive eviction claim. The landlord who is hoping to drive out the resident by neglecting to fix the premises is acting foolishly. Florida Statute 83.56 (1) authorizes the tenant to break the lease if the landlord fails to comply with the terms of the lease after receiving written notice from the resident: "If the landlord materially fails to comply with s. 83.51(1) or material provisions of the rental agreement within 7 days after delivery of written notice by the tenant specifying the noncompliance and indicating the intention of the tenant to terminate the rental agreement by reason thereof, the tenant may terminate the rental agreement. If the failure to comply with s. 83.51(1) or material provisions of the rental agreement is due to causes beyond the control of the landlord and the landlord has made and continues to make every reasonable effort to correct the failure to comply, the rental agreement may be terminated or altered by the parties, as follows: (a) If the landlord's failure to comply renders the dwelling unit untenantable and the tenant vacates, the tenant shall not be liable for rent during the period the dwelling unit remains uninhabitable. (b) If the landlord's failure to comply does not render the dwelling unit untenantable and the tenant remains in occupancy, the rent for the period of noncompliance shall be reduced by an amount in proportion to the loss of rental value caused by the noncompliance."

Casualty damage can lead to a constructive eviction

Even if the apartment home has damage unrelated to the neglect of the landlord, the resident may still be allowed to break the lease, and a judge could treat the case as a constructive eviction. For example, if a fire or hurricane destroys the rental premises, Florida Statute 83.63 contains the applicable law: "Casualty damage. If the premises are damaged or destroyed other than by the wrongful or negligent acts of the tenant so that the enjoyment of the premises is substantially impaired, the tenant may terminate the rental agreement and immediately vacate the premises. The tenant may vacate the part of the premises rendered unusable by the casualty, in which case the tenant's liability for rent shall be reduced by the fair rental value of that part of the premises damaged or destroyed. If the rental agreement is terminated, the landlord shall comply with s. 83.49(3)."

Interplay between prohibited practices and constructive evictions

The property manager must be aware that a judge may rule that a resident was constructively evicted if the landlord has violated Section 83.67 of the Florida Statutes. For example, if the landlord has disconnected one or more utilities or changed locks, a constructive eviction ruling may also follow.

Liability of the landlord for constructive evictions

Residents can sue for damages for the fair market value of the apartment home for the period that the premises were uninhabitable. If only part of the premises is uninhabitable, then a landlord can still be liable for a partial constructive eviction. The landlord could also be sued for actual and consequential damages under tort law. Also, if the resident prevails in court, the landlord would be responsible to pay the resident's costs and reasonable attorney's fees. If the constructive eviction was based on a prohibited practice by the landlord, then the landlord may also be responsible to the resident for actual and consequential damages or 3 months' rent, whichever is greater, and costs, including attorney's fees. In the case of casualty damage to the premises not the fault of the landlord, judges will be less inclined to award damages to the tenant.

Retaliatory evictions

Florida law protects residents from retaliatory evictions. Starting in 1983, Florida Statute 83.64 specifically made retaliatory evictions unlawful in Florida. The section of the law prohibits landlords from retaliating against residents for a wide range of activities.

Rent increases

F.S. 83.64 (1) makes it unlawful to retaliate against a resident by discriminatorily raising the rent if the resident has engaged in conduct protected by the statute. Even the threat of a rent increase could trigger a violation of the statute.

Decrease of services

F.S. 83.64 (1) also prohibits the landlord from retaliating against a resident by discriminatorily decreasing services that the resident is provided under the lease. Just like the threat of rent increases can lead to a violation of the statute, so can threats to decrease services if the resident has taken part in conduct protected by the statute.

Complaints made by the resident

Section 83.64 (1) (a) protects the resident who complains to a governmental agency charged with responsibility for enforcement of a building, housing, or health code of a suspected violation applicable to the premises. For example, if the resident called code enforcement to complain of a roach problem, the landlord may not retaliate against the resident for reporting the alleged code violation.

Resident organizations

Section 83.64 (1) (b) protects the resident who has organized, encouraged, or participated in a tenants' organization. Property managers can easily become frustrated when a resident incites other residents to complain to management. Property managers must not give in to the temptation to retaliate in this instance.


Resident complains to the landlord

Section 83.64 (1) (c) prohibits a landlord from retaliating against a resident who has made a complaint pursuant to F. S. 83.56 (1). Therefore, if the resident provides proper written notice to the landlord requesting that the landlord cure an alleged noncompliance with the lease, the landlord may not retaliate against the resident.

Members of the military

The Florida Statutes allow members of the military to terminate their leases in accordance with Section 83.682. The statute outlines numerous ways for the military resident to qualify in order to terminate the lease. Obviously, the landlord is not always elated when that takes place. Still, the landlord must not retaliate, as Section 83.64 (1) (d) prohibits retaliation against residents who have terminated a rental agreement pursuant to Section 83.682.

Retaliatory non-renewals

Many property managers believe that non-renewal is an absolute right under Florida law. They mistakenly believe that a landlord can non-renew a lease for any reason. Although landlords of conventional properties are technically not required to have good cause to non-renew a tenancy, the decision cannot be made capriciously, and many non-renewal notices can be contested. Retaliating against a resident who is protected under Section 83.64 may lead to massive liability for the landlord. The landlord should contact an attorney if guidance is needed in this type of situation. Documentation should be present in the resident's file supporting the manager's decision to non-renew the resident, such as notices to the resident for causing unreasonable disturbances on the premises. If the resident's file does not contain proper documentation, the door is left wide open for claims of retaliation.

Landlord defenses

F. S. 83.64 authorizes the landlord to present a number of defenses to allegations of retaliation made by the resident. The landlord may prevail in litigation if the action was not discriminatory, was not primarily retaliatory or is for good cause.

Courts will examine the intent of the landlord

Courts will try to figure out what was going on inside the mind of a landlord to determine if the conduct was retaliatory, in violation of the statute. A key factor is the landlord's primary motivation to non-renew the tenancy; if the primary purpose supporting the decision to non-renew the tenancy was not retaliatory, then the landlord should have a valid defense under the statute.

No discrimination;

The statute will not penalize a landlord who evicts or threatens to evict a resident based upon the protections of F.S. 83.64, if there is no discrimination. If the landlord has treated the resident no differently than other residents with respect to rent charged, services provided or other actions taken by the landlord, then the landlord should have a good defense.

Good cause

Section 83.64 (3) allows the landlord to defend a claim of retaliation by showing that the eviction is for good cause. The statute sets forth examples of good cause, but anticipates that there will be other reasons not listed. Examples of good cause include, but are not limited to, good faith actions for nonpayment of rent, violation of the rental agreement or of reasonable rules by the resident, or violation of the terms of Chapter 83 of the Florida Statutes by the resident.

Liability for the landlord

An eviction or even the threat of eviction, if it falls into a category of conduct prohibited by the statute, can lead to massive liability for the landlord, including but not limited to, actual and consequential damages. The resident, if the prevailing party in a court action, would be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees and court costs.


(Back to Top)


On-Site Resident Transfers
by Harry A. Heist Attorney at Law


A request to transfer to another unit on-site is not uncommon. The reasons may range from a desire to have a larger or smaller apartment, a different view, or maybe an unpleasant situation with a neighbor has developed, but your resident still wishes to live at your apartment community. Sometimes the transfer is actually offered or encouraged by you to alleviate a resident's complaints of another neighbor's noise, or due to a problem with the apartment necessitating the movement of the resident to another unit. You should always have a written policy detailing when you will allow an on-site transfer, and you should use a proper resident transfer addendum. A major problem you may face is discovery of damages in the resident's old unit and possibly no recourse once the resident takes occupancy of the new unit. This problem can be avoided.

If the transfer of the resident is due to some alleged problem with the condition of the current unit, such as an alleged mold problem, or complaints of repairs not being handled, or the resident has made threats regarding not paying rent, withholding rent, calling code enforcement, etc., you really should consult your attorney BEFORE offering a resident transfer. Otherwise, you could have the same problem follow the resident to the new unit, where they will attempt to continue the drama and try not to pay rent. The end of this article will deal with this type of transfer and how to make it successful.

Thorough inspection of the Current Unit - If the transfer is contemplated, a thorough inspection of the current unit is essential. However, a problem develops: it is difficult to properly inspect an occupied unit due to the presence of the resident's furniture and other personal property in the unit. You must try to do your best to find any possible problems, since once the resident relocates to the new unit, you may have difficulty forcing the resident to pay for the damages. The throw rug may be hiding a serious carpet stain, the couch may be covering up a damaged wall, or the air freshener and cool air conditioning may cover up serious smoke odors. Before you agree to allow the transfer, you and your maintenance tech must take whatever steps are possible to inspect the unit completely to the best of your abilities. In some cases, particularly when there is significant damage, you will decide not to allow the transfer at all. Never guarantee that the resident can transfer without a full inspection and condition that meets with your approval, and NEVER move a resident to a new unit if there are damages that you have discovered or amounts due that have not been paid already.

The Security Deposit - Ideally, you will collect a security deposit for the new unit, but in most cases this is not done, since you probably already have one, and the current security deposit is transferred to the new unit. With security deposits currently tending to be on the low side because of economic conditions, the chances of the deposit covering any substantial damages are slim, hence the need for a good, thorough inspection as complete as can possibly be accomplished with an occupied unit.

Discovering damages in the old unit - One would think that if the resident transferred to the new unit and damages were discovered in the old unit, that you could charge the resident and begin an eviction action if the resident continued in failing to pay. Unless you use a proper resident transfer addendum, this logical approach is not possible. When a resident signs a new lease or is allowed to move into a new unit, a brand new contract has been formed. While the resident may still owe you for damages on the old unit, you cannot use the threat of eviction to force payment, as the resident no longer lives in the old unit under the old lease. The new lease or the amended old lease now stands on its own.

The key is to be able to transfer any obligations, such as the obligation to pay for damages, to the new lease, and this is only accomplished if you use a resident transfer addendum WITH the proper wording. Failure to use the proper resident transfer addendum will result in the resident owing you the money for the damages on the old unit, but you will have no way to enforce the payment of the sums owed other than to send the resident to collections. It would be quite awkward and unusual to send a current resident to collections when you just transferred that individual.

What does your company's resident transfer addendum look like? - If you even have one at all, examine it carefully, as most of the ones currently in use are legally insufficient. The addenda we see usually do not take into account the possibility of you discovering damages in the old vacated unit, or the resident owing other sums, late charges or rent on the old unit. If your resident transfer addendum (if you even have one) does not mention damages or money owed from the old unit, please carefully review ours, and bring this to your regional manager's attention.

How a proper resident transfer addendum works - A legally proper resident transfer addendum deals with a number of issues in detail. You should not take any chances here, just because your resident has been with you for a while. This is not the time to let your guard down in any way. Review our resident transfer addendum.

a. Names - make sure the names are the same as the current lease. If there is an occupant who is not on the lease, this is the time to screen, approve and add.

b. Addresses - Make sure your old unit address and new unit address is completely accurate. It is easy to transpose numbers and make errors.

c. Date of Vacating Old unit - This date should be stated; the resident will remove all items and agrees that on that date, you will be changing the locks once the unit has been vacated.

d. Security Deposit Wording - Here it will be stated whether there will be a new security deposit collected, or you will be transferring the currently held deposit. IF YOU ARE COLLECTING A NEW DEPOSIT, PLEASE MAKE SURE THE FUNDS HAVE CLEARED THE BANK BEFORE THE TRANSFER.

e. Change of Residents - Possibly one or more of the residents on the old lease will not be moving into the unit, and they have or are vacating your property. Have them sign this, as well under the "Vacating Resident" section, under which they WAIVE any claim to a security deposit you may be holding and transferring. You don't want to transfer the residents to a new unit and have a vacating resident come back after you demanding part or all of the deposit.

f. Statement moving any money owed on old unit to NEW unit - Your addendum will clearly state that any money owed or damages found in the old unit will be transferred to the obligations of the new unit. This is probably the most important clause in the document and will allow you to make payment demands by serving a 7 Day Notice of Noncompliance with Opportunity to Cure once the resident moves into the new unit. If the resident does not comply with the notice, you can proceed to evict, just as if the noncompliance involves the new unit.

Amending the Lease or New Lease? - There are 2 ways that the resident transfer can be accomplished.

1. You can simply amend the current lease to reflect the new unit number and use the "Resident Transfer Addendum- Current Lease" form, OR
2. You can have the resident sign a completely new lease and use the "Resident Transfer Addendum - New Lease" form.

Using a new lease under Approach 2 is recommended, since you will have extended the tenancy by using a brand new lease, and have the resident on your most recent lease, but it is possible to amend the current lease using Approach 1, in conjunction of course with using the proper resident transfer addendum. Depending upon whether you will amend the current lease or use a brand new lease will determine which version of the resident transfer addendum you will use, "Resident Transfer Addendum - Current Lease" or "Resident Transfer Addendum - New Lease".

The PROBLEM Transfer - Occasionally you will have a situation when the resident wants to transfer, or is forced to transfer, because of damage to the unit, such as mold, fire, water intrusion, a/c problems, unresolved maintenance issues or any other unpleasant thing that may occur. Unlike a simple case when a resident wants to move from a 2 bedroom to a 3 bedroom unit and everyone is happy, these problem transfers have to be treated with special care. In some cases, the resident has already withheld or threatened to withhold rent due to the inconvenience caused by the problem, and the resident may have a legal and legitimate right to do so. If the matter were to end up in court, (and of course by transferring we want to avoid this) a judge may in fact rule that your company owes them some sort of compensation. You should speak to your attorney immediately to see if some sort of compensation is recommended, such as free rent or a concession, or if the transfer is enough compensation. The facts of the case, the severity of the problems, and the stance of the resident will all factor into what is going to be done. The worst thing you can do allow the transfer and then start making the resident offers or negotiating with the resident, as things get out of hand quickly, and it becomes a he said/she said fight. You should never transfer a resident unless everyone is on the same page, with a signed agreement in place. If you fail to come to an agreement, you may simply be transferring your legal problems to another unit, or you can even compound your legal problems by tying up two units.

(Back to Top)

Law Offices of Heist, Weisse & Wolk, P.A.
Phone: 1-800-253-8428 Fax: 1-800-367-9038

Serving Florida's Property Managers with main office in Fort Myers Beach. Available by appointment in Orlando and Clearwater

|     Home Page     |     Firm Profile     |     Attorney Profiles     |     General Services     |     Apartment Communities     |     Residential Managers     |     Apartment Communities     |     Residential Managers     |     Homeowners/Investors     |     Eviction Q & A     |     Legal Articles     |     Training/Events     |     Contact Us     |