Gersten v. Dimovski

Florida Circuit Courts

Gersten v. Dimovski

43 Fla. Supp. 2d 38

CourtCircuit Court for the Judicial Circuits of Florida

DecidedJuly 17, 1990

DocketCase No. 90-3909 (08)

StatusPublished

This text of 43 Fla. Supp. 2d 38 (Gersten v. Dimovski) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Circuit Court for the Judicial Circuits of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gersten v. Dimovski, 43 Fla. Supp. 2d 38 (Fla. Super. Ct. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

HARRY G. HINCKLEY, JR., Circuit Judge.

This appeal concerns an action commenced in the County Court of Broward County, Florida where Tenant/Appellee successfully recovered his security deposit plus court costs from Landlord/Appellant.

Appellant’s brief consists mainly of an itemized list of damages to the apartment and additional costs for nonpayment of rent. No counterclaim was filed in the trial court nor was written notice of intention to impose a claim on the security deposit ever sent to Appellee in accord with § 83.49(3)(a), Florida Statutes. The Appellant, having failed to give the statutorily required notice, forfeits his right to [39]*39impose a claim upon the security deposit. See, Durene v Alcime, 448 So.2d 1208 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984).

Therefore based on the foregoing, the final judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at the Broward County Courthouse, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301, this 17th day of July, 1990.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

HARRY G. HINCKLEY, JR., Circuit Judge.

This appeal concerns an action commenced in the County Court of Broward County, Florida where Tenant/Appellee successfully recovered his security deposit plus court costs from Landlord/Appellant.

Appellant’s brief consists mainly of an itemized list of damages to the apartment and additional costs for nonpayment of rent. No counterclaim was filed in the trial court nor was written notice of intention to impose a claim on the security deposit ever sent to Appellee in accord with § 83.49(3)(a), Florida Statutes. The Appellant, having failed to give the statutorily required notice, forfeits his right to [39]*39impose a claim upon the security deposit. See, Durene v Alcime, 448 So.2d 1208 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984).

Therefore based on the foregoing, the final judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at the Broward County Courthouse, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301, this 17th day of July, 1990.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

43 Fla. Supp. 2d 38, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gersten-v-dimovski-flacirct-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack