A common misconception among landlords is that the tenant who breaches his lease automatically forfeits his security deposit as the minimum damages. Some landlords believe the forfeited security deposit is in addition to any other damages. Most landlords bolster their claim to the automatic forfeiture of the security deposit for breach of the lease with supporting lease language. As a general rule we advise that landlords avoid automatic security deposit forfeitures for breach of the lease. There are some exceptions to the general rule and I touch on them at the end of the article.
An invitation to litigation
The automatic security deposit forfeiture is an invitation to litigation. First, the fact that it is an automatic forfeiture doesn’t relieve the landlord of the responsibility of timely sending the notice of claim on the security deposit. Second, the tenant receives a notice of claim that states the deposit is forfeited. It may or may not include additional itemized damages for the lease breach.
Most Florida county court judges will feel that the automatic security deposit forfeiture is inequitable. They will find the lease forfeiture clause unconscionable and refuse to enforce it, citing the Florida statute that permits them to do so. If that is the landlord’s only reason on the notice for claiming the deposit, the landlord’s reason is now invalid, and the notice of claim may be found to be statutorily insufficient. The landlord may lose at this point without any opportunity to present his case.
The judge may allow the landlord to present proof of the damages. Relying on the automatic forfeiture clause, the landlord may not have done an inspection of the premises or obtained any proof of the damage (pictures) or saved any evidence of the cost of repair. Even the fair claims of the landlord can fail for lack of proof.
The lawsuit scenario
Unfortunately for the landlord the scenario in which this happens is the tenant’s lawsuit for return of his security deposit. If the tenant recovers any portion of his security deposit, he is generally entitled to his attorney fees. As we are all too well aware, attorney fees can be astronomical compared to the small amount of deposit money recovered.
A trap for the unwary
If the litigation risk wasn’t enough, the automatic security deposit forfeiture is a trap for the unwary landlord. The legally unsophisticated landlord or the attorney inexperienced in landlord/tenant law may draft an automatic forfeiture clause that inadvertently limits the landlord to the security deposit as the only damages amount.
The rules of lease interpretation provide that ambiguities are decided against the lease drafter. Landlords commonly include lease provisions providing for other damages (rent until relet, cleaning charges, use beyond ordinary wear and tear) or for damages as provided under Florida law. These provisions are in addition to the automatic security deposit forfeiture for breach of the lease. Poorly drafted lease language can result in the court holding that the damages clauses are confusing, ambiguous or even contradictory. The security deposit forfeiture can become the landlord’s exclusive remedy, in spite of actual damages exceeding the security deposit amount.
The exception
As I indicated above there are exceptions to the rule. Security deposit forfeiture clauses may be found valid when used as the damages for the failure to give notice at the end of the lease. This is treated in other articles. They are valid as part of well drafted vacate agreements.
Having read this article I hope landlords will see that the automatic security deposit forfeiture for breach of the lease is a risky method to collect a deposit. If the tenant’s breach results in damages in excess of the security deposit, then the landlord should forego even mentioning any automatic forfeiture and apply the damages to the deposit. If they are less than the deposit, then the landlord should contemplate his explanation to a judge for keeping the “unearned” money, while the tenant’s attorney smiles at his easy attorney fees.
LAW OFFICES OF HEIST, WEISSE & WOLK, PLLC
“Serving the Property Management Professional”
www.evict.com www.evicttv.com www.evictforms.com info@evict.com


- STORM
- SALE
- PETS
- RENT
- LEASE
- EVICTIONS
- LIABILITY
- LEAD
- ABANDONMENT
- DEATH
- DEPOSIT
- EVICTION
- APPLICATION
- BANKRUPTCY
- ATTORNEYS FEES
- ADVANCE RENT
- DEPOSITS
- RENTAL FURNITURE
- FLOOD
- FIRE
- LIABILITY AVOIDANCE
- CARPET
- NONCOMPLIANCE
- ACCESS
- PET DEPOSIT
- EARLY TERMINATION
- CORPORATE TENANTS
- SATELLITE DISHES
- RENEWING A LEASE
- REMOVING A TENANT FROM A LEASE
- REFERRAL FEES
- LEASE BREAK
- CORPORATE TENANT
- APPLICATION AND SCREENING
- LAWSUIT
- LEASE SIGNING
- NOTICE SERVING
- REPAIRS
- NONCURABLE NONCOMPLIANCE
- TENANT PAINTING
- LEASE BREAKS
- TENANT DEATH
- ATTICS
- UNAUTHORIZED OCCUPANTS
- TAX LIENS
- SUBLETTING
- SQUATTERS
- LEASE SIGNING AND POA
- SHOWINGS
- CREDIT REPORT
- NONRENEWAL
- ESA AND SERVICE ANIMALS
- SECURITY DEPOSIT REFUNDING
- SCREENS AND WINDOWS
- RENT ABATEMENT
- RENEWAL CONFIRMATION
- REMOVING A TENANT
- PROCESS SERVER
- PRESSURE WASHING
- PREPAID - ADVANCE RENT
- PRE AND POST CLOSING OCCUPANCY
- PERSONAL PROPERTY
- DEPOSIT FUNDS
- NSF CHECKS
- MOLD
- NOTICES
- INSURANCE
- HVAC
- HOT TUB
- HOMESTEAD
- SECURITY DEPOSITS
- FIREPLACE
- SAFETY
- DOG BITES
- DISCLOSURE
- NONCOMPLIANCES
- CORPORATIONS
- LATE RENT
- CARBON MONOXIDE
- ASSOCIATIONS
- AIR CONDITIONING
- POOLS
- RELEASES
- FICTITIOUS NAMES
- SUING AND COLLECTIONS
- COLLECTIONS AND SUING
- YOUR TENANT SERVED YOU WITH A 7 DAY NOTICE - WHAT DOES THE TENANT WANT?
- WHAT DOES THE TENANT WANT?
- VERBAL AGREEMENTS
- TERMINATING DUE TO A MAJOR REPAIR NEED
- TERMINATING DUE TO MOLD