Property Manager Q&A
August 2026 — Answers to Your Toughest Questions
Real questions from property managers. Real legal answers from the Law Offices of Heist, Weisse & Wolk.
Question:
We have just terminated one of our maintenance personnel and would like to have him off of the property. He has been living with another Tenant, Mary, on the property, but is not on Mary's lease agreement. We searched through all our records, and it appears that he did not sign any lease or any type of employee rental addendum. Our company took over management of the property about 2 months ago, and according to payroll records, he has been employed here for about 6 months. His payroll stubs indicate that his address is the apartment where he currently resides. We were going to serve a Seven Day Notice of Noncompliance With Opportunity to Cure on Mary, as the ex-employee is not on the lease; therefore, he is an unauthorized occupant, and Mary is in violation. Is this the correct approach?
Answer:
First, you need to determine how long the ex-employee has been staying with Mary, and if the prior management knew or consented to this arrangement. Based on the pay stubs, it can be assumed that he most likely did in fact live with Mary for quite a long time. I would imagine that this was known and consented to, and the reason he was not placed on the lease was simply due to sloppiness by the prior management company. The situation we have here is called "waiver and estoppel". The prior management company allowing the ex-employee to remain with Mary as an occupant, even though it violated the terms of the lease, causes a situation whereby you have now waived your rights to enforce the terms of Mary's lease and are "estopped" from doing so. This is a strong legal argument that attorneys raise when it can be proven that a manager allowed a noncompliance to continue for some time, then decides to enforce the lease. In the present case, you can serve the Seven Day Notice of Noncompliance with Opportunity to Cure on Mary, but if she does not move or remove the ex-employee, I do not feel you have a strong case. Hopefully there is not much time left on the lease, and you can take the route of non-renewal.
Question:
We have a community with a lot of young people and college students. Often, we have to deal with our Tenants hanging school flags and banners from the balconies, and it normally has not been a problem. We usually serve a Seven Day Notice of Noncompliance with Opportunity to Cure, as our lease prohibits the hanging of clothing, banners or any other items from the balconies. Last week, we served notices on two Tenants, one of whom hung a large United States flag off of the balcony railing, and another who across the courtyard hung a Confederate flag. The Tenant who is hanging the United States flag came into the office yesterday claiming that he is allowed to do this by law regardless of what the lease says. This Tenant's father happens to be an attorney, and he is threatening us with legal action if we make him remove the flag. We certainly are not unpatriotic, but it is really making our property look sloppy. Is he correct?
Answer:
Under Florida law it a prohibited practice for a Property Manager to prohibit a Tenant from displaying a United States flag on the dwelling unit. There are some conditions though. The flag must be removable, not larger than 4.5 feet by 6 feet, must be displayed in a respectful manner and cannot infringe on any space belonging to another Tenant. In your situation, if the United States flag complies with these conditions, you will not be able to ask the Tenant to remove the flag, regardless of what your lease or rules and regulations say. As for the Confederate flag, you can ask the Tenant to remove this if it is in violation of a term or condition in your lease or rules and regulations. I would recommend that you give the Tenant who is displaying the Confederate flag a copy of Florida Statutes Section 83.67, so he does not think you are treating him differently in a discriminatory fashion. The proper notice to serve the Confederate flag displaying Tenant would be the Seven Day Notice of Noncompliance with Opportunity to Cure.
Question:
We just received an odd request from one of two applicants who have been approved. It appears that one of the applicants is the "money person" and will be paying the security deposit while the other will not. The applicant paying the deposit, John, wants to be assured that when he vacates that in the event the deposit is returned, he receives it and it is not sent to the other Tenant James on the lease. This seems reasonable to me, and we certainly do not want to lose the rental. Is this a possibility or even advisable?
Answer:
It is absolutely possible and legal to segregate the security deposit and if all parties are in agreement, hold it on behalf of one Tenant and not all the Tenants. Agreement is the key here, so you would want to either use a Security Deposit Payer Addendum or clearly write up the agreement in the Special Stipulations section of your lease. It is understandable in some instances that one Tenant is indeed the "money person" and wants to make sure that in the event the deposit is returned, he will get it. Now you have to decide if this is advisable. When you are originally making this arrangement, it all seems reasonable and you write it all up. The problem is that a year from now, your accounting office proceeds as normal and sends out the deposit refund check to both parties, John Smith and James Jones, it ends up in John's hands who forges James' name while John was the "money person" who was supposed to get the check returned to him. Now you have a problem. Whenever you make an exception to your standard company policy, you have to consider whether your computer system can properly reflect this exception or if possibly the exception will be overlooked at lease end. We are big proponents of writing big letter notes on the front of files where an exception has been made so at move out, there is a lower chance of making a mistake or overlooking that "exception" you made.
