IN THE COUNTY COURT IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION CASE NO: CONO-10-11087-71

GORDON BARTLETT, PLAINTIFF, vs. RICHARD KAMERER, DEFENDANT. ____________________________________________________ / PLATINTIFFS RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS COMES NOW the Plaintiff, GORDON BARTLETT, by and through his undersigned counsel, and hereby files this, its Response to Defendants Motion to Dismiss, and urges this Honorable Court to deny these motions in their entirety, and states as follows: 1. Plaintiff gave the Defendant proper notice by providing the Defendant a This Notice

termination of tenancy notice (Notice) on July 22, 2010 (attached hereto).

provided the Defendant with three months notice in accordance with the terms of the addendum to the lease (Addendum) that is dated December 29, 2009 and was executed by both parties on or about that same date (attached hereto). The Addendum states, in pertinent part: If you, as landlord, wish to terminate Mr. Kamerers tenancy, you must give 3 months notice to Mr. Kamerer The Defendant mistakenly interprets this notice requirement to be three full months or more specifically, three calendar months. Clearly the parties did not intend for this interpretation to be made or else they would have included such language in the Addendum. Therefore, the

CASE NO: CONO-10-11087-71 Plaintiff was in compliance with this Addendum when he provided the Defendant with the Notice on July 22, 2010. Furthermore, the Plaintiff properly terminated the tenancy in accordance with Florida Statutes 83.57(3) which states, in pertinent part: When the tenancy is from month to month, by giving not less than 15 days notice prior to the end of any monthly period The Defendant admits in his Motion to Dismiss that he received the Plaintiffs Notice on July 22, 2010. The instant action was commenced on October 26, 2010. This timeline meets both the statutory requirements, as well as the notice requirements agreement to by the parties in the Addendum; and therefore this argument for dismissal should be denied. 2. The subject property has not been foreclosed upon and therefore the Plaintiffs

beneficial rights to the same have not been extinguished. The Plaintiff is still the legal title holder to the subject property and he continues to have a right to maintain this action for eviction; and therefore this argument for dismissal should be denied. 3. Plaintiff brought the instant case as a result of the Defendants refusal to vacate

the subject property after the expiration of the lease agreement between these parties. The previous case, CONO 10-08316 (70), does in fact involve the same parties and the same rental property as the instant case, however, the eviction was a result of the Defendants default in payment of the rent. The causes of action are in fact different; and therefore this argument for dismissal should be denied. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, GORDON BARTLETT, respectfully requests this Honorable Court to deny the Defendants Motion to Dismiss in its entirety, and renews his

CASE NO: CONO-10-11087-71 prayer for the relief contained in the Complaint and for the costs incurred in this action and reasonable attorneys fees and such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

BRIAN M. ROKAW, P.A. Attorney for Plaintiff, Gordon Bartlett 9245 SW 157th Street, Suite 207 Miami, Florida 33157 Telephone: (305) 722-5888 Facsimile: (305) 231-0090 brokaw@bmrlawfirm.com

By:______________________________________ BRIAN M. ROKAW, ESQ. Florida Bar No.: 677280

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished via U.S. mail to: Robert Pasin, Esq., Law Office of Robert Pasin, 3300 University Drive, Suite 806, Coral Springs, Florida 33065 and Gordon Bartlett, 918 SW Blue Stem Way, Stuart, FL 34997, on this ____ day of December, 2010. By:______________________________________ BRIAN M. ROKAW, ESQ. Florida Bar No.: 677280