Cases from cite.case.law:

ATLANTIS ESTATE ACQUISITIONS, INC. v. DePIERRO, 125 So. 3d 889 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . theory of unjust enrichment, because the rent was not held in a segregated account pursuant to section 83.49 . . . The landlord contended that it did not violate section 83.49(2) by failing to segregate and hold the . . . It found that the landlord had violated the notice requirements of section 83.49(3) with respect to the . . . Stab Because it was not advance rent, the landlord did not have an obligation under section 83.49(1) . . . Section 83.49(3)(a), Florida Statutes, provides: Upon the vacating of the premises for termination of . . .

PLAKHOV, v. SEROVA,, 126 So. 3d 1221 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . Next, the Tenant asserts that the Landlord failed to comply with section 83.49(2), Florida Statutes ( . . . In any event, the statute provides that “[fjailure to provide this [section 83.49(2) ] notice shall not . . . (3)(a) notice was not excused by the Tenant’s failure to give the notice required by section 83.49(5) . . . We do not reach the issue of a tenant’s remedy where the landlord fails to comply with section 83.49( . . . See § 83.49(8), Fla. . . .

CLEARONE COMMUNICATIONS, INC. a v. CHIANG, a DSP, a, 432 F. App'x 770 (10th Cir. 2011)

. . . ClearOne agreed to license to Biamp an acoustic echo cancellation (AEC) algorithm at an average price of $83.49 . . . calculated lost profits by multiplying the number of channels that Biamp licensed from Wide-Band by $83.49 . . .

In REVISIONS TO SIMPLIFIED FORMS PURSUANT TO RULE A OF RULES REGULATING THE FLORIDA BAR, 50 So. 3d 503 (Fla. 2010)

. . . SOURCE: Section 83.49(3)(a), Florida Statutes (40052007) FORM NOTES ARE FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY . . . ItThis notice is sent to you as required by § 83.49(3), Florida Statutes. . . .

UNITED STATES v. GREEN,, 389 F. Supp. 2d 29 (D. Mass. 2005)

. . . For 2002 and 2003, the percentages are 91.83% and 83.49% respectively, averaging out to 88.9% of persons . . .

In BLUNT S. d b a, 236 B.R. 861 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1999)

. . . replenish the security deposits previously collected and utilized by Debtors in violation of Section 83.49 . . .

FLORIDA RS, INC. d b a v. H. NELSON,, 751 So. 2d 55 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

. . . Nelson filed an action for breach of lease and violation of section 83.49(9), Florida Statutes (1995) . . .

STATE v. KRAFT GENERAL FOODS, INC. RJR RJR, 926 F. Supp. 321 (S.D.N.Y. 1995)

. . . Acquisition results in KrafVNabisco controlling 14.52% of a market in which the top four firms have 83.49% . . .

THE FLORIDA BAR RE APPROVAL OF FORMS PURSUANT TO RULE b OF THE RULES REGULATING THE FLORIDA BAR, 591 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 1991)

. . . It is sent to you as required by s. 83.49(3) Florida Statutes. . . . SOURCE: Section 83.49(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1990). . . .

ROSE v. GAGLIOTI,, 49 Fla. Supp. 2d 6 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 1991)

. . . appellant to be the prevailing party for purposes of awarding attorneys fees pursuant to Florida Statute § 83.49 . . . appellant to appellate attorneys fees and costs absent any explicit legislative intent to the contrary in § 83.49 . . . We find that there is no such legislative intent in § 83.49(3)(c) to deny appellant his appellate attorneys . . .

LINKER v. ROSSE ZAGER, 49 Fla. Supp. 2d 22 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 1991)

. . . For example, Florida Statute 83.49(3)(a) requires a landlord to advise a tenant in writing as to the . . .

ROSE v. GAGLIOTI HONKONIN, 46 Fla. Supp. 2d 19 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 1991)

. . . Thereafter, appellees moved to tax legal fees and costs against ROSE pursuant to Florida State § 83.49 . . . S. § 83.49(3)(c) because appellant was the prevailing party below notwithstanding the fact that this . . . Florida Statutes § 83.49(3)(c) provides that: If either party institutes an action in a court of competent . . .

CASEY, v. PICINICH d b a, 573 So. 2d 76 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

. . . . § 83.49(3)(a), Fla.Stat. (1987). . . .

MALAGON v. SOLARI,, 566 So. 2d 352 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

. . . independent action for damages, and by making the landlord liable for attorney’s fees and costs under section 83.49 . . .

GERSTEN v. DIMOVSKI, 43 Fla. Supp. 2d 38 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 1990)

. . . notice of intention to impose a claim on the security deposit ever sent to Appellee in accord with § 83.49 . . .

ATTWOOD v. LAMEE, 43 Fla. Supp. 2d 34 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 1990)

. . . However, F.S. 83.49(5) does not “waive any right the tenant may have to the security deposit or any part . . .

NARDI, v. CONTINENTAL NATIONAL BANK,, 559 So. 2d 307 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

. . . See generally § 83.49, Fla.Stat. (1987). . . . See id. § 83.49(1). . . .

BAND v BELL, 34 Fla. Supp. 2d 18 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 1989)

. . . Appellants demanded return of the $750.00 security deposit pursuant to Section 83.49(3)(a). . . . prevailed on the issue of the security deposit, they are entitled to attorneys’ fees pursuant to Section 83.49 . . . the fifteen (15)-day period, forfeits his right to impose a claim upon the security deposit, Section 83.49 . . .

A. CASAVAN, v. LAND O LAKES REALTY, INC. OF LEESBURG,, 542 So. 2d 371 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)

. . . continuing noncompliance. (6) If the rental agreement is terminated, the landlord shall comply with s. 83.49 . . .

RUSSO v. MANFREDO, 35 Fla. Supp. 2d 23 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 1989)

. . . . §§ 83.49-83.67 (1987). . . .

COOPER v. LYNN, 33 Fla. Supp. 2d 104 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 1989)

. . . a security deposit, he “is entitled to receive ... a reasonable fee for his attorney” under Section 83.49 . . . right to fees under a strict interpretation of the security deposit provisions of the Statute, Section 83.49 . . . to impose a claim for damages upon the security deposit, following the language set forth in Section 83.49 . . . Section 83.49(3)(b), Florida Statutes, allows the Landlord to deduct the amount of his claim only after . . .

KAPLAN v MINTO BUILDERS,, 32 Fla. Supp. 2d 126 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 1988)

. . . See § 83.49(3)(c), Fla. Stat. . . .

HUNTER S RUN, LTD. v HOELSCHER EHRHART, 34 Fla. Supp. 2d 148 (Orange Cty. Ct. 1987)

. . . Notice Requirements Under 83.49 1. . . . Stat. 83.49(3) requires notice be sent to the tenant’s last mailing address. . . . Stat. 83.49. . . . Stat. 83.49(3)(b) requires the tenant to respond within 15 days. . . . Stat. 83.49(3)c Fla. Stat. 83.56(1) Fla. Stat. 83.56(3) Fla. Stat. 83.59 Fla. . . .

OBERS, v. PRINCE, 22 Fla. Supp. 2d 177 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 1987)

. . . Section 83.49(3)(c), Florida Statutes (1985), provides for the prevailing party to recover legal fees . . .

IMBIMBO v. VOLUSIA REALTY ASSOCIATES, INC., 20 Fla. Supp. 2d 100 (Volusia Cty. Ct. 1986)

. . . Pursuant to Section 83.49(3) the Defendant notified the Plaintiffs in writing that it was imposing a . . . given, the Tenant is entitled to the return of his security deposit if all the provisions of Section 83.49 . . .

WILLIAMS v. SCRIMA,, 18 Fla. Supp. 2d 72 (Palm Beach Cty. Ct. 1986)

. . . Count II specifically alleges that the Defendant breached Section 83.49 by failing to hold a security . . . no cause of action exists for a landlord’s failure to comply with the deposit provisions of Section 83.49 . . . 83.55 would allow the tenant to recover damages caused by the landlord’s noncompliance with Section 83.49 . . .

In E. CIMAGLIA,, 50 B.R. 9 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 1985)

. . . . § 83.49(3)(a) which states: “Upon the vacating of the premises for termination of the lease, the landlord . . . They rely on Fla.Stat. § 83.49(3)(c), which provides that: “If either party institutes an action in a . . .

FAGALY v. ALDERMAN PROPERTIES, INC., 10 Fla. Supp. 2d 92 (Orange Cty. Ct. 1985)

. . . the premises the landlord sent the tenant a written notice withholding the deposit in compliance with 83.49 . . . ST A TEMENT OF LA W Florida Statute 83.49(3) provides: (a) Upon the vacating of the premises for termination . . . Florida Statute 83.49(3)(a) requires the landlord to send written notice to the tenant specifying the . . . Florida Statute 83.49(3)(b) is the tenant’s counterpart to Florida Statute 83.49(3)(a). . . . Although 83.49(3)(b) requires the tenant to object to the claim, it is silent whether the tenant must . . .

DOVERSPIKE v. PARHAM, 10 Fla. Supp. 2d 95 (Orange Cty. Ct. 1985)

. . . premises at the end of the term, the landlord never gave proper notice pursuant to Florida Statute 83.49 . . .

SALOMON v. JAY, 9 Fla. Supp. 2d 116 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 1985)

. . . Appellant moved to be awarded a reasonable attorney fee pursuant to the provisions of Section 83.49(3 . . .

SHARICK, v. SAGER, 8 Fla. Supp. 2d 122 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 1984)

. . . of F.S. 83.41 for failure to adequately exterminate and attorney’s fees pursuant to F.S. 83.48 and 83.49 . . .

DURENE, v. ALCIME,, 448 So. 2d 1208 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

. . . A three judge panel reversed the trial court, finding that the notice requirements of section 83.49(3 . . . See section 83.49(3)(c). . . . In addition, the landlord is liable for attorneys' fees and costs under section 83.49(3)(c). . . . Section 83.49(3)(c) clearly states that when a party is obligated to adjudicate his right to the security . . . Section 83.49(3)(a) states in relevant part: Upon the vacating of the premises for termination of the . . .

KEMP v. McGREGOR,, 6 Fla. Supp. 2d 75 (Orange Cty. Ct. 1983)

. . . Stat. 83.49(5). . . . Stat. 83.49(3)(a). Since the Plaintiff failed to five the notice, she forfeits the deposit. . . . Stat. 83.49(3). . . . Stat. 83.49(3)(c). See by analogy, Gator Shoe Co. v. . . .

LEWIS v. GUTHARTZ,, 428 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 1982)

. . . The trial court found that the Tenants were eligible for attorneys’ fees under sections 83.48 and 83.49 . . . Similarly, section 83.49(3)(c) is likewise not applicable because a right to a security deposit was not . . . As seen by putting section 83.49(3)(c) within the context of preceding sections 83.-49(3)(a) and (3)( . . . Section 83.49(3)(c), therefore, provides no basis for an award of attorneys’ fees. . . . It is sent to you as required by s. 83.49(3), Florida Statutes. . . .

In M. HASTY, M. HASTY, v. CHAIN,, 25 B.R. 429 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1982)

. . . While it is not clear whether the Plaintiff gave a 7 day termination notice as required by § 83.49 Fla.Stat . . . deposit, the Defendant failed to comply with the statutory guidelines governing residential tenancies. § 83.49 . . . certified mail of the Defendant’s intent to impose a claim on the security deposit as required by § 83.49 . . . The Plaintiff shall recover the sum of $935 in addition to $500 attorneys fees pursuant to § 83.49(3) . . .

UNITED STATES v. DALLAS COUNTY COMMISSION,, 548 F. Supp. 794 (S.D. Ala. 1982)

. . . Baldwin 58,026 83.49 11,474 16.51 69.500 Barbour 14,701 56.33 11,399 43.67 26,100 Bibb 10,450 73.59 3,750 . . .

ILLINOIS TERMINAL RAILROAD COMPANY, v. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, 671 F.2d 1214 (8th Cir. 1982)

. . . . $83.49 per car. . . .

GUTHARTZ, v. LEWIS,, 408 So. 2d 600 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981)

. . . Fees The trial court awarded the tenants attorneys’ fees under the authority of Sections 83.48 and 83.49 . . . (emphasis supplied). “§ 83.49(3)(c) — If either party institutes an action in court of competent jurisdiction . . . Similarly, Section 83.49(3)(c) provides no basis for an award of fees. . . . return of their security deposits upon vacating the premises, which, as is so plainly seen by Sections 83.49 . . .

CALIFORNIA v. ARIZONA, 452 U.S. 431 (U.S. 1981)

. . . N 15°23'58" E 83.49 feet; 316. N 15°42'01" E 261.08 feet; 317. N 36°24'20" W 51.58 feet; 318. . . . N 15°23'58" E 83.49 feet; 316. N 15°42'01" E 261.08 feet; 317. N 36°24/20// W 51.58 feet; 318. . . .

GENERAL FINANCE CORPORATION v. KIERNAN, 47 Fla. Supp. 92 (Palm Beach Cty. Ct. 1978)

. . . actions; Sec. 73.091 Florida Statutes provides for attorney’s fees in eminent domain proceedings; Sec. 83.49 . . .

DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATION, DIVISION OF HOTELS AND RESTAURANTS, v. STEIN Ft., 326 So. 2d 205 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1976)

. . . interest on the tenants’ security deposits it had been holding since October 1, 1972, as required by § 83.49 . . . a fine against appellees or to revoke their license for failure to comply with either § 83.261 or § 83.49 . . . Additionally, the circuit court held that §§ 83.261(2) (b) and 83.49(2), Fla.Stat., F.S.A., effective . . . To hold otherwise, under the facts of these appeals, would give retroactive effect to § 83.49(2), Fla.Stat . . . Section 83.49, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., has been amended by Oh. 75-133, Sec. 2, Laws of Florida 1975, by adding . . .