This document does not reflect the intent or official position of the bill sponsor or House of Representatives.
STORAGE NAME: h1305z.DOCX
DATE: 3/11/2024
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES STAFF FINAL BILL ANALYSIS
BILL #: CS/HB 1305 Residential Tenancies
SPONSOR(S): Commerce Committee, Maggard and others
TIED BILLS: IDEN./SIM. BILLS: CS/SB 1466
FINAL HOUSE FLOOR ACTION: 118 Y’s
0 N’s GOVERNOR’S ACTION: Pending
SUMMARY ANALYSIS
CS/HB 1305 passed the House on February 15, 2024, and subsequently passed the Senate on March 5, 2024.
The Residential Landlord and Tenant Act (Act), codified in part II of ch. 93, F.S., governs the rental of a
dwelling unit in Florida. The Act provides that whenever money is deposited or advanced by a tenant on a
rental agreement as security for performance of the rental agreement or as advance rent for other than the
next immediate rental period, the landlord has the option of holding such money in a separate account in a
“Florida banking institution” for the benefit of the tenant. The Act, however, does not define what constitutes a
“Florida banking institution.”
In a recent court filing alleging violations of the Act (the Palm Beach County Case), the plaintiff relied on a
repealed definition of the term “Florida banking institution.” The plaintiff was a limited liability company that had
been assigned the rights to a security deposit by the defendant landlord’s former tenants. The plaintiff cited to
the repealed statutory definition and alleged that the defendant landlord had violated the Act by depositing the
tenants’ security deposit with JPMorgan Chase Bank, which is not a Florida chartered bank nor headquartered
in Florida.
Although the definition of “Florida banking institution” relied upon by the plaintiff in the Palm Beach County
Case has been repealed, a similar definition still exists in chapter 658, F.S. This fact, combined with the fact
that the Act does not define “Florida banking institution,” suggests that similar lawsuits may be filed again in the
future.
The bill amends the Act to define “Florida financial institution” as any bank, credit union, trust company,
savings bank, or savings or thrift association doing business under the authority of a charter issued by the
United States, this state, or any other state which is authorized to transact business in this state and whose
deposits or share accounts are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or the National Credit
Union Share Insurance Fund. The effect of this change is to expressly permit landlords to comply with the Act
by depositing their tenants’ security deposits in any financial institution doing business in Florida, regardless of
where the institution is chartered or headquartered.
The bill has an indeterminate positive impact on state and local government expenses but no impact on state
and local government revenues. It has indeterminate positive impact on the private sector.
Subject to the Governor’s veto powers, the effective date of this bill is upon becoming a law.
STORAGE NAME: h1305z.DOCX PAGE: 2
DATE: 3/11/2024
I. SUBSTANTIVE INFORMATION
A. EFFECT OF CHANGES:
Background
Florida Residential Landlord and Tenant Act
The Residential Landlord and Tenant Act (Act), codified in part II of ch. 83, F.S., governs the rental of a
dwelling unit in Florida. A “dwelling unit” is defined as:
A structure or part of a structure that is rented for use as a home, residence, or sleeping place
by one person or by two or more persons who maintain a common household;
A mobile home rented by a tenant; or
A structure or part of a structure that is furnished, with or without rent, as an incident of
employment for use as a home, residence, or sleeping place by one or more persons.
The Act provides that whenever money is deposited or advanced by a tenant on a rental agreement as
security for performance of the rental agreement or as advance rent for other than the next immediate
rental period, the landlord has the option of holding such money in a separate account in a “Florida
banking institution” for the benefit of the tenant.
1
The Act, however, does not define what constitutes a
“Florida banking institution.”
Litigation Over Violations of the Act
In a recent court filing in Palm Beach County alleging violations of the Act (the Palm Beach County
Case), the plaintiff relied on a statutory definition of the term “Florida banking institution” that existed in
ch. 658, F.S., relating to the regulation of banks and trust companies in Florida.
2
The statute relied
upon, however, was repealed over a decade ago.
3
The repealed statute defined “Florida banking institution” as “a bank whose home is this state,”
4
and
defined “home state” as:
With respect to a state bank, the state by which the bank is chartered;
With respect to a national bank, the state in which the main office of the bank is located; and
With respect to a foreign bank, the state determined to be the home state of such foreign bank
under 12 U.S.C. s. 3103(c).
5
The plaintiff in the Palm Beach case was a limited liability company that had been assigned the rights to
a $500 deposit by the defendant landlord’s former tenants.
6
The plaintiff cited to the repealed statutory
definition of “Florida banking institution” and alleged that the defendant landlord had violated the Act by
depositing the tenants’ security deposit with JPMorgan Chase Bank, which is not a Florida chartered
bank nor headquartered in Florida.
7
JPMorgan Chase, however, is the largest financial institution in the
United States and has numerous branches in Florida.
8
Based upon the alleged violation, the plaintiff
1
Ss. 83.49(1)(a)-(b), F.S.
2
KAC 2021-1 LLC, as Assignee to Erole Emmanuel and Marie Joseph, v. Eatmira II LLC d/b/a Catalina at Miramar,
Uniform Case No. 50-2023-SC-005770-XXXX-WB (Small Claims Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach
County, Apr. 13, 2023) (hereinafter referred to as the Palm Beach County Case).
3
See ch. 2011-194, s. 24, Laws of Fla. (repealing s. 658.295, F.S. (2010)).
4
S. 658.295(2)(m), F.S. (2010).
5
S. 658.295(2)(o), F.S. (2010).
6
Palm Beach County Case, supra note 2, Count II.
7
Id.
8
As of September 30, 2023, JPMorgan Chase had $3.38 trillion in assets, 80 million customer accounts, and 4,700
branches. See Christopher Murray, The Biggest Banks in 2024, Market Watch Guides (updated Jan. 16, 2024),
https://www.marketwatch.com/guides/banking/largest-banks-in-the-us/ (last visited Jan. 27, 2024).
STORAGE NAME: h1305z.DOCX PAGE: 3
DATE: 3/11/2024
sought to recover its attorney fees and court costs from the defendant landlord as permitted under the
Act.
9
As of January 29, 2024, the case is still pending resolution.
10
Although the definition of “Florida banking institution” relied upon by the plaintiff in the Palm Beach
County Case has been repealed, a similar definition still exists in chapter 658, F.S.
11
This fact,
combined with the fact that the Act does not define “Florida banking institution,” suggests that similar
lawsuits may be filed again in the future.
Effect of the Bill
The bill amends the “Definitions” section of the Act to create a definition for “Florida financial institution.”
Under the bill, “Florida banking institution” is defined as any bank, credit union, trust company, savings
bank, or savings or thrift association doing business under the authority of a charter issued by the
United States, this state, or any other state which is authorized to transact business in this state and
whose deposits or share accounts are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or the
National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund.
12
The effect of this change is to expressly permit landlords to comply with the Act by depositing their
tenants’ security deposits in any financial institution doing business in Florida, regardless of where the
institution is chartered or headquartered.
The bill provides an effective date of July 1, 2024.
II. FISCAL ANALYSIS & ECONOMIC IMPACT STATEMENT
A. FISCAL IMPACT ON STATE GOVERNMENT:
1. Revenues:
None.
2. Expenditures:
The bill has an indeterminate positive impact on state courts’ expenses to the extent the proposed
definition of “Florida banking institution” decreases the amount of litigation over the rights to security
deposits in Florida. As a result, the bill is likely to reduce the caseload burden on circuit courts.
13
B. FISCAL IMPACT ON LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:
1. Revenues:
None.
2. Expenditures:
The bill has an indeterminate positive impact on local courts’ expenses to the extent the proposed
definition of “Florida banking institution” decreases the amount of litigation over the rights to security
9
Palm Beach County Case, supra note 2, Count II. See also s. 83.48, F.S., which entitles prevailing parties to recover
attorney fees and court costs in civil actions to enforce the provisions of the Act.
10
See Clerk of the Circuit Court & Comptroller for Palm Beach County, Case Info: Uniform Case No. 50-2023-SC-005770-
XXXX-WB, https://appsgp.mypalmbeachclerk.com/eCaseView/search.aspx (last visited Jan. 29, 2024).
11
S. 658.2953(3)(c), F.S., defines “Florida bank” as “a bank whose home state in this state.”
12
The addition of the proposed definition changes the numbering of other defined terms. As such, the bill updates certain
cross-references to conform with such changes.
13
Under Florida law, circuit courts have concurrent jurisdiction with county courts to consider cases involving landlord-
tenant disputes. S. 34.011(1), F.S.
STORAGE NAME: h1305z.DOCX PAGE: 4
DATE: 3/11/2024
deposits in Florida. As a result, the bill is likely to reduce the caseload burden on small claims and
county courts.
14
C. DIRECT ECONOMIC IMPACT ON PRIVATE SECTOR:
The bill has an indeterminate positive impact on the private sector to the extent the proposed definition
of “Florida banking institution” decreases the amount of litigation over the rights to security deposits in
Florida. The decrease in litigation will reduce costs to both plaintiffs and defendants in landlord-tenant
disputes. Further, banking institutions that are not chartered or headquartered in Florida may benefit
from receiving additional security deposits.
D. FISCAL COMMENTS:
None.
14
Under Florida law, county courts have concurrent jurisdiction with circuit courts to consider cases involving landlord-
tenant disputes. County courts have exclusive jurisdiction of proceedings relating to the right of possession of real
property and to the forcible or unlawful detention of lands and tenements, except that the circuit court also has jurisdiction
if the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional limits of the county court or the circuit court otherwise has
jurisdiction. S. 34.011(1), F.S.