Florida Statutes

Fla. Stat. § 83.64 (2025)

Retaliatory conduct.

✓ 2025 Florida Statutes — current through the 2025 Regular Session

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us JustiaFla. Statutes CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

83.64 Retaliatory conduct.—

(1) It is unlawful for a landlord to discriminatorily increase a tenant’s rent or decrease services to a tenant, or to bring or threaten to bring an action for possession or other civil action, primarily because the landlord is retaliating against the tenant. In order for the tenant to raise the defense of retaliatory conduct, the tenant must have acted in good faith. Examples of conduct for which the landlord may not retaliate include, but are not limited to, situations where:

(a) The tenant has complained to a governmental agency charged with responsibility for enforcement of a building, housing, or health code of a suspected violation applicable to the premises;

(b) The tenant has organized, encouraged, or participated in a tenant organization;

(d) The tenant is a servicemember who has terminated a rental agreement pursuant to s. 83.682;

(e) The tenant has paid rent to a condominium, cooperative, or homeowners’ association after demand from the association in order to pay the landlord’s obligation to the association; or

(f) The tenant has exercised his or her rights under local, state, or federal fair housing laws.

(2) Evidence of retaliatory conduct may be raised by the tenant as a defense in any action brought against him or her for possession.

(3) In any event, this section does not apply if the landlord proves that the eviction is for good cause. Examples of good cause include, but are not limited to, good faith actions for nonpayment of rent, violation of the rental agreement or of reasonable rules, or violation of the terms of this chapter.

(4) “Discrimination” under this section means that a tenant is being treated differently as to the rent charged, the services rendered, or the action being taken by the landlord, which shall be a prerequisite to a finding of retaliatory conduct.

History.—s. 8, ch. 83-151; s. 450, ch. 95-147; s. 3, ch. 2003-72; s. 15, ch. 2013-136.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 9 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1984–2024 · leading case: Imperial Colliery Co. v. Fout, 373 S.E.2d 489 (W. Va. 1988).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Imperial Colliery Co. v. Fout, 373 S.E.2d 489 (W. Va. 1988). “Laws § 34-18-46; S.C.Code Ann. § 27-40-910; Tenn.”

Espenschied v. Mallick, 633 A.2d 388 (D.C. 1993). “Code § 45-2552; Fla.Stat.Ann. § 83.64; Haw.Rev.Stat. § 521-74; Iowa Code Ann.”

Atwood Owner LLC v. Lumzy (Fla. 1st DCA 2024). · cites it 8× “I concur in the Court’s decision to affirm but write separately to discuss the application of section 83.64, Florida Statutes, to a holdover tenant’s claim of retaliatory eviction.”

Smith v. Rooy, 11 Fla. Supp. 2d 53 (Fla. Orange Cty. Ct. 1985). · cites it 12× “Defendant answered and asserted as an affirmative defense that Plaintiff is seeking to evict her in retaliation for her requests that Plaintiff make repairs, as well as her request for an inspection by the Minimum Housing Board, in violation of Fla. Stat. 83.64 (1983). Plaintiff…”

Shadow Hills Assocs. v. Mason, 7 Fla. Supp. 2d 120 (Fla. Orange Cty. Ct. 1984). · cites it 6× “Section 83.64, Florida Statutes (1983) explicitly forbids retaliatory evictions from residential tenancies covered by Part II of the Florida Landlord-Tenant Act.”

Lawrence T. Newman v. Heritage Vill. West Condo. Ass'n, Inc. (11th Cir. 2023). “23 (7)–(9) with Fla. Stat. § 83.64 . And their claim that the defendants denied them housing services (in- cluding property maintenance and clean up, participation in com- mittees and meetings, and community notices) based on their reli- gion requires proof of different facts…”

Bills v. Legri S. Resistor Corp., 9 Fla. Supp. 2d 158 (Fla. Cty. Ct. 1985). · cites it 2× “Moreover, in 1983, the Legislature adopted Section 83.64, Florida Statutes, which specifically characterizes retaliatory conduct in a residential tenancy as a defense to a possessory action.”

Salmonte v. Eilertson, 526 So. 2d 179 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). · cites it 2× “That defense, however, could not be raised because Section 83.64(3), Florida Statutes, provides that the defense does not apply when the landlord proves that the eviction is for good cause, and further defines good cause to include "violation of the rental agreement.”

Backus v. Tovar, 32 Fla. Supp. 2d 116 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 1988). “1973], or may raise any other defense, whether legal or equitable, that he may have, including the defense of retailiatory conduct in accordance with § 83.64. The defense of a material noncompliance with § 83.”

— 83.64(1) — 1 case

Smith v. Rooy, 11 Fla. Supp. 2d 53 (Fla. Orange Cty. Ct. 1985). “Defendant answered and asserted as an affirmative defense that Plaintiff is seeking to evict her in retaliation for her requests that Plaintiff make repairs, as well as her request for an inspection by the Minimum Housing Board, in violation of Fla. Stat. 83.64 (1983). Plaintiff…”

— 83.64(1983) — 1 case

— 83.64(3) — 2 cases

Salmonte v. Eilertson, 526 So. 2d 179 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). “That defense, however, could not be raised because Section 83.64(3), Florida Statutes, provides that the defense does not apply when the landlord proves that the eviction is for good cause, and further defines good cause to include "violation of the rental agreement.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.