Daymi Martinez v. Roads Point Townhomes, Inc., etc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Daymi Martinez v. Roads Point Townhomes, Inc., etc.

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 7, 2024

Docket2023-1786

StatusPublished

This text of Daymi Martinez v. Roads Point Townhomes, Inc., etc. (Daymi Martinez v. Roads Point Townhomes, Inc., etc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Daymi Martinez v. Roads Point Townhomes, Inc., etc., (Fla. Ct. App. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed August 7, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D23-1786 Lower Tribunal No. 22-6771 SP ________________

Daymi Martinez, Appellant,

vs.

Roads Point Townhomes, Inc., etc., et al., Appellees.

An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Jeffrey Rosinek, Senior Judge.

Daniel W. Courtney, P.A., and Daniel W. Courtney, for appellant.

Harvey D. Rogers, P.A., and Harvey D. Rogers, for appellees.

Before EMAS, GORDO and LOBREE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See § 83.49(3)(a), Fla. Stat. (2022) (“If the landlord fails to give the required notice within the 30-day period, he or she forfeits the right

to impose a claim upon the security deposit and may not seek a setoff

against the deposit but may file an action for damages after return of the

deposit.”); § 83.49(5), Fla. Stat. (2022) (“Failure [of a month to month tenant]

to give . . . [at least 7 days’ written notice by certified mail or personal delivery

to the landlord prior to vacating or abandoning the premises which notice

shall include the address where the tenant may be reached] shall relieve the

landlord of the notice requirement of paragraph (3)(a) but shall not waive any

right the tenant may have to the security deposit or any part of it.”); Plakhov

v. Serova, 126 So. 3d 1221, 1223 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (finding where both

landlord and tenant fail to comply with proper statutory notice requirements

“the Landlord and the Tenant are free to litigate over their entitlement to the

security deposit without leaping any procedural hurdles”); Boxer Max Corp.

v. Cane A. Sucre, Inc., 905 So. 2d 916, 918 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (“The

‘prevailing party’, for purposes of attorney’s fees, is a party which the trial

court determines prevailed on significant issues in the litigation. Just

because a party receives a monetary award does not necessarily mean the

party is a prevailing party in the litigation.” (citations omitted)).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI