The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title VI
CIVIL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

Chapter 83
LANDLORD AND TENANT

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 83.22

83.22 Removal of tenant; service.—

(1) After at least two attempts to obtain service as provided by law, if the defendant cannot be found in the county in which the action is pending and either the defendant has no usual place of abode in the county or there is no person 15 years of age or older residing at the defendant’s usual place of abode in the county, the sheriff shall serve the summons by attaching it to some part of the premises involved in the proceeding. The minimum time delay between the two attempts to obtain service shall be 6 hours.

(2) If a landlord causes, or anticipates causing, a defendant to be served with a summons and complaint solely by attaching them to some conspicuous part of the premises involved in the proceeding, the landlord shall provide the clerk of the court with two additional copies of the complaint and two prestamped envelopes addressed to the defendant. One envelope shall be addressed to such address or location as has been designated by the tenant for receipt of notice in a written lease or other agreement or, if none has been designated, to the residence of the tenant, if known. The second envelope shall be addressed to the last known business address of the tenant. The clerk of the court shall immediately mail the copies of the summons and complaint by first-class mail, note the fact of mailing in the docket, and file a certificate in the court file of the fact and date of mailing. Service shall be effective on the date of posting or mailing, whichever occurs later; and at least 5 days from the date of service must have elapsed before a judgment for final removal of the defendant may be entered.

History.—s. 2, ch. 3248, 1881; RS 1753; GS 2229; RGS 3537; CGL 5401; s. 1, ch. 22731, 1945; s. 34, ch. 67-254; s. 2, ch. 83-151; s. 3, ch. 84-339; s. 440, ch. 95-147.

F.S. 83.22 on Google Scholar

F.S. 83.22 on Casetext

Amendments to 83.22

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 83.22

Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 83.22.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

IN RE BLUME,, 591 B.R. 675 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2018)

. . . The Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct apply in this Court, under L.R. 83.22(b) (E.D. . . .

IN RE EMANUEL P, 216 F. Supp. 3d 786 (E.D. Mich. 2016)

. . . L.R. 83.22, on February 10, 2016, a reciprocal Order of Suspension from the practice of law in the U.S . . . L.R. 83.22, on February 10, 2016, a reciprocal Order of Suspension from the practice of law in the U.S . . . L.R. 83.22(g)(1), this three-judge panel was appointed to hear the matter, and the Michigan Attorney . . . L.R. 83.22(i)(2). The panel finds that Petitioner Emanuel has failed to meet these standards. . . . Therefore, Petitioner has not proven by clear and convincing evidence his satisfaction of 83.22(i)(2) . . .

ARMSTRONG, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,, 95 F. Supp. 3d 1049 (E.D. Mich. 2015)

. . . LR 83.22(c)(3) (“When misconduct or allegations of misconduct that, if substantiated, would warrant discipline . . . to ... the chief district judge for institution of disciplinary proceedings by this court under LR 83.22 . . . LR 83.22(c)(3) as an example of a pattern of unprofessional conduct, for action that may be appropriate . . . under LR 83.22(e). . . .

In CHARGES OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT, 769 F.3d 762 (D.C. Cir. 2014)

. . . R. 83.22(e)(6)(E); W.D. Mich. Civ. R. 83. 1(k)(ii)(B)(3); D. Utah Civ. R. 83-1.5.7(e); Ark. . . .

EAGLE, v. HURLEY MEDICAL CENTER,, 292 F.R.D. 466 (E.D. Mich. 2013)

. . . Therefore, suppression of the affidavits by a protective order and discipline pursuant to Local Rule 83.22 . . .

LANDIS, v. FANNIE MAE a k a M. v., 922 F. Supp. 2d 646 (E.D. Mich. 2013)

. . . Greenwood be referred to the Chief Judge pursuant to Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 83.22(c) . . . (3) for institution of disciplinary proceedings under L.R. 83.22(e), as well as for consideration as . . .

In SLABBINCK, 482 B.R. 576 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2012)

. . . Local R. 83.22(b) (E.D. Mich.). Local R. . . .

In THAV, 852 F. Supp. 2d 857 (E.D. Mich. 2012)

. . . L.R. 83.22. See Misc. No. 12-mc-50264, Dkt. Nos. 5 and 6. . . . L.R. 83.22(g)(1)(A). . . . See L.R. 83.22(g)(2)(A). . . . L.R. 83.22(g)(2)(B). . . . See L.R. 83.22(g)(2)(B)(iii), (iv). . . .

UNITED STATES v. HAMDAN, 801 F. Supp. 2d 1247 (U.S.C.M.R. 2011)

. . . Instruments 1, 8 n. 35 (Beijing, China, 2007) (citing Canadian Criminal Code §§ 83.18, 83.19, 83.21, 83.22 . . . See also Canadian Criminal Code §§ 83.18, 83.19, 83.2, 83.21, and 83.22. . . . .

PERRY v. CITY OF PONTIAC, a, 254 F.R.D. 309 (E.D. Mich. 2008)

. . . LR 83.22(b); Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa. v. . . .

ADOLF JEWELERS, INC. v. JEWELERS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,, 614 F. Supp. 2d 648 (E.D. Va. 2008)

. . . presented that diamonds sold by Goodman, therefore no coverage awarded) Sample Reduction: $ 1,469.19 (only 83.22% . . . Adolf provided 92.09% of invoices for the stolen diamonds and 83.22% of invoices for the stolen jewelry . . .

CENTRA, INC. Co. v. ESTRIN LLP,, 538 F.3d 402 (6th Cir. 2008)

. . . District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Local Rule 83.22(b). . . .

HARRIS, v. GULF STREAM COACH, INC. R. V., 547 F. Supp. 2d 765 (E.D. Mich. 2008)

. . . Rule of Professional Conduct 3.3 (imposing a duty of candor toward the courts); see also Local Rule 83.22 . . .

VENTURE INDUSTRIES CORPORATION, J. v. AUTOLIV ASP, INC., 457 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2006)

. . . Local R. 83.22(b) (“If a lawyer has offered material evidence and comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer . . .

UNITED STATES v. D- KOUBRITI, D- D-, 305 F. Supp. 2d 723 (E.D. Mich. 2003)

. . . See Local Rules 1.1(c), 83.22(b), U.S. . . .

JTH TAX, INC. d b a v. H R BLOCK EASTERN TAX SERVICES, INC., 245 F. Supp. 2d 749 (E.D. Va. 2002)

. . . Court calculated 18% of the 9,446 returns, or 1700 returns, multiplied by an average fee per client of $83.22 . . . Defendants claim that Plaintiffs are estopped from asserting a profits figure other than $83.22 based . . . Stosch’s testimony to find the average fee per client to be $83.22. . . .

JTH TAX, INCORPORATED A J JMS B L DCM B, d b a v. H R BLOCK EASTERN TAX SERVICES, INCORPORATED H R JTH A J JMS B L DCM B, d b a v. H R H R, 28 F. App'x 207 (4th Cir. 2002)

. . . Using an “average fee per client” of $83.22, the court calculated Block’s immediate gains at $141,474 . . .

UNITED STATES v. SHABAZZ,, 263 F.3d 603 (6th Cir. 2001)

. . . Under Local Rule 83.22(e)(1)(A) of the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Eastern . . .

JTH TAX, INC. d b a v. H R BLOCK EASTERN TAX SERVICES, INC., 128 F. Supp. 2d 926 (E.D. Va. 2001)

. . . Defendants’ average fee per client in Hampton Roads was $83.22. II. . . . Stosch would equal 1,700 returns at an average fee per client of $83.22, or a total of $141,474. . . . Stosch’s expert witness testimony on behalf of Plaintiffs to determine the average fee per client of $83.22 . . .

BANNER, v. CITY OF FLINT, 136 F. Supp. 2d 678 (E.D. Mich. 2000)

. . . Lr. 83.22(c) , the Court will refer Plaintiffs counsel to the Michigan Attorney Grievance Commission . . . Rule 83.22(c) states, “When misconduct or allegations of misconduct that, if substantiated, would warrant . . .

L. HATCHETT, v. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE,, 126 F. Supp. 2d 1038 (E.D. Mich. 2000)

. . . Local R. 83.22(g)(3). Attorneys are required to petition for reinstatement. . . . L.R. 83.22(g). The panel was to determine if Mr. . . .

GRUTTER, v. BOLLINGER,, 16 F. Supp. 2d 797 (E.D. Mich. 1998)

. . . LR 83.22(g)(1) (three-judge panels in attorney reinstatement proceedings). . . . .

ELLISON, v. KOPSTEIN, In Z. KOPSTEIN,, 171 B.R. 879 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. 1994)

. . . 454; thence along the last referred to parcel South 71° 43' 30" West 37.17 feet, North 63° 01' West 83.22 . . .

JAG ENTERPRISES v. E G ASSOCIATES, INC., 33 Fla. Supp. 2d 139 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 1989)

. . . Section 83.22(1) which allows service by posting to the premises when a defendant cannot be found within . . .

KNIGHT MANOR ONE, INC. v. J. A. FREEMAN,, 254 So. 2d 375 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1971)

. . . Service of process upon the defendant was attempted under § 83.22, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., which provides . . .

SUSSMAN v. ISSAC, 35 Fla. Supp. 50 (Dade Cty. Civ. Ct. Rec. 1971)

. . . S. 83.22 states as follows — “Removal of tenant; Service. . . .

SMITH, v. DESIGNERS INDUSTRIES, INC. a, 109 So. 2d 776 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1959)

. . . . § 83.22, F.S. A., and while such suit was pending, commenced this suit for rent. . . .

JOSE PEREZ LORENZO, a MARCELINO GARCIA, v. HONORABLE S. J. MURPHY, WATERS F. BURROWS ELSA S. BURROWS, 159 Fla. 639 (Fla. 1947)

. . . Section 83.22, Florida Statutes 1941, provides that upon the filing of Petition for Removal of Tenant . . .

WILKENS v. TRAFIKAKTIEBOLAGET GRANGESBERG OKELOSUND, 10 F.2d 129 (5th Cir. 1925)

. . . Dockage, Houston Compress Company 140.75 Marine branch of Houston Cotton Exchange .................... 83.22 . . . items no longer contested and all the items in dispute above listed, except the inspection fee of $83.22 . . . Our conclusions are that the decree should be modified, by adding to it $83.22, the inspection fee of . . .

TRAFIKAKTIEBOLAGET GRANGESBERG OKELOSUND v. WILKENS, 4 F.2d 577 (S.D. Tex. 1925)

. . . 1923..................... 35.00 Marine branch of Houston Cotton Exchange September 29, 1923....... 83.22 . . . boat hire, $25 of the $35 charges for loading and inspection certificate, Houston and Galveston, and $83.22 . . .