Question 1
We have had trouble in the past when residents have been able to break their leases due to military orders. One actually broke her lease a few months ago and moved only a short distance away to base housing. Is there any way we can prevent this from happening or charge a lease break penalty? We are at 100% occupancy with a waiting list right now. If I have other qualified applicants, can I deny someone in the military?
Answer
Laws are in place which prohibit any type of discrimination against servicemembers or individuals who later decide to go into active duty with a branch of the military. Under Florida Statute 83.67(3), the landlord is specifically prohibited from discriminating against a servicemember in offering a dwelling unit for rent or in any of the terms of the rental agreement. Servicemembers have a number of special early termination rights under Florida and federal law not afforded to other individuals, but the landlord's decision not to rent to a servicemember cannot be based upon these additional rights. The penalties for violating Florida Statute 83.67 are severe, including but not limited to a 3-month rent penalty and exposure to the servicemember's attorney's fees. Improper attempts to assess early termination charges against servicemembers who legitimately invoke early termination rights under state or federal law, or attempts to create special penalties under the lease for servicemembers who exercise their legal rights, will also expose the landlord to serious potential liability.
Understanding the legal rights of those in active military is a must especially if you manage in an area of large military presence. There can be no discrimination and there are severe penalties for violating the law.
Question 2
According to our company guidelines, if we have a married or single couple applying for residency, as long as one of the two applicants meets our financial requirement criteria, we will approve them for occupancy, but only put the approved individual on the lease as a signer with the other down as an occupant. Additionally, sometimes we get requests by one party to be the lease signer, but the other wants to be listed as an occupant only. Recently we were filing an eviction, and our attorney told us that all adults should be lease signers regardless of who is approved. Is there any danger in only having the qualified person sign the lease?
Answer
It is crucial that all adults are lease signers. While it may seem logical to have a person on the lease only as an occupant, it is not advisable. An occupant has all conferred rights of the tenancy but none of the responsibilities. If the non-signing occupant fails to follow the lease, you will only have recourse against the individual signing the lease.
Sometimes, the lease signer vacates the premises leaving the adult occupant behind. While it may seem that you can easily have the occupant removed, it actually becomes more difficult and complicated, as you now must file an eviction against a person that is not in occupancy of the apartment. We have even seen situations in which the lone signer is inadvertently released, making for a very bad eviction situation in which no one is arguably responsible.
More commonly, you may accept rent from the adult occupant, resulting in a quasi-landlord/tenant relationship being created, which can later complicate an eviction action. Unless the adult is a child of the resident or is in some way incompetent to sign the lease, all adults should always be lease signers, even if one does not meet your financial criteria.
All adult occupants, with a few exceptions, should always be on the lease as tenants and lease signers. Failing to do this correctly can result in a complicated and delayed eviction. Get a strange request? Contact us at info@evict.com for assistance and guidance.
Question 3
One of our residents claimed that his car was damaged by our landscaper. Small rocks or stones supposedly thrown by the landscaper's weed eater chipped the paint on one side of his new car. Our resident gave us an estimate from the auto body shop for $450.00 to have the paint chips repaired, and my regional manager approved this with the condition that we would pay the shop directly once the repair was complete. I emailed all this information to the resident, who demanded that he be paid directly. Our resident was not happy with this, never got the chips repaired, and is now suing us in small claims court. We were just served with paperwork and a pretrial conference in a couple weeks. Should we fight this? Will we win?
Answer
You can attempt to fight, but you will almost certainly lose. Once you told the resident that you would pay for the damages, you pretty much admitted liability, or at a minimum, obligated yourself to the resident. Conditioning the payment upon the resident getting the repair done first, with your property paying the repair shop directly, was unreasonable.
If you were to get into a car accident, the at fault driver's insurance company would be required to pay you directly, regardless of whether you decided to pocket the money or get the repair done. In the future, try not to allow situations to escalate to this level. Not only will you most likely have to pay the resident the $450, but since the resident filed the small claims action, you will also have to pay his costs of filing the case.
If you want to fight, you most likely will be able to attend the pretrial conference without an attorney. If the apartment community is owned by a corporation, an officer of the corporation must attend, or an officer of the corporation must provide written authorization for an employee of the corporation to deal with all phases of the defense. In the end, you will have just wished that you cut a check and made this all go away.
When damage to a tenant's personal property occurs on site, no matter how it happened, what you say or do can have serious ramifications. Always have the tenant fill out the Incident Report and contact us at info@evict.com right away for assistance.
