Atlas v. Cohen — Third District affirmed the summary judgment

Case
Jeff Atlas and Susan Atlas v. Eli Cohen
Court
Florida Third District Court of Appeal
Judge
Miller; Bokor; Gooden
Date Decided
August 20, 2026
Docket No.
3D25-1676
Topics
Summary Judgment; Security Deposits; Landlord-Tenant Law
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

Jeff Atlas and Susan Atlas, representing themselves, appealed from a decision of the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County in litigation against Eli Cohen. The appellate opinion does not describe the underlying facts or the parties’ specific claims.

The Third District’s citations indicate that the appeal concerned summary judgment and Florida’s statute governing a landlord’s claim against a tenant’s security deposit. That statute requires written notice within 30 days after termination of the rental agreement and provides consequences when a landlord fails to give timely notice.

The Court’s Holding

The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the circuit court’s judgment in a per curiam opinion. It cited Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510, under which summary judgment must be granted when there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

The court also cited the rule provisions allowing consideration of cited and other record materials and requiring a nonmovant to serve a response with its supporting factual position within 40 days after service of a summary-judgment motion. The court provided no additional analysis explaining how those rules or the security-deposit statute applied to the record.

Key Takeaways

  • The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment without a written factual analysis.
  • A party opposing summary judgment must timely identify and support its factual position under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510.
  • Under section 83.49(3)(a), Florida Statutes, a landlord who fails to provide timely notice forfeits the right to claim or set off against the security deposit, although the landlord may pursue damages after returning the deposit.

Why It Matters

The decision underscores the procedural importance of properly supporting and timely serving a response to a summary-judgment motion. It also highlights the statutory distinction between asserting a claim against a security deposit and filing a separate damages action after returning the deposit.

✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top