Florida Landlord Alert: FCCPA Liability & Class Action Risks

Florida Landlord Alert: FCCPA Liability & Class Action Risks

Florida Mobile Home Park Lawsuit: Key Facts & FCCPA Violations

A recent Florida case—McIntosh v. Missile View MHP, LLC, FLWSUPP 3302MCIN (Brevard County, March 21, 2025)—offers a cautionary tale for landlords who take shortcuts when dealing with tenants. The case underscores how failure to follow statutory procedures not only risks financial liability, but also invites serious legal consequences, including class action lawsuits. The message is clear: you may own the property, but the law owns the process.

McIntosh v. Missile View: How Water Billing Broke Florida Law

Missile View MHP, LLC (“MVMHP”) is a mobile home park in Brevard County, Florida. Its tenants—elderly, fixed-income residents—leased lots under a 2014 Prospectus, which included 5,000 gallons of water per month in the base rent. For years, neither the former nor current owner billed tenants separately for water within that threshold.

In 2020, the new park owner, MVMHP, issued a “90-day notice” claiming that effective January 1, 2021, it would no longer include water in base rent and would begin billing all usage separately. However, MVMHP jumped the gun and began charging tenants for water in December 2020, before the notice period expired and before receiving regulatory approval for any amendment to the Prospectus.

Tenants objected, citing the 2014 Prospectus. Instead of backing down, MVMHP threatened eviction if tenants didn’t pay. Ultimately, 97 residents paid the unlawful charges under duress. Plaintiff Lourdes McIntosh filed a class action suit, alleging violations of the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act (FCCPA) and the Florida Mobile Home Act.

Court’s Decision: 5 Legal Errors That Cost the Landlord

On March 31, 2025, the Brevard County Circuit Court ruled decisively in favor of the tenants:

  • Violation of FCCPA: The court found MVMHP asserted a legal right it did not have—charging tenants for water included in base rent—and had actual knowledge it lacked that right.
  • Premature and Unlawful Charges: Despite the 90-day notice, the charges began early. Plus, MVMHP hadn’t yet received approval for its amended Prospectus.
  • Bad Faith Conduct: The court emphasized that threatening eviction to coerce payment violated the duty of good faith and fair dealing under the Mobile Home Act.
  • No Excuse for Noncompliance: Defenses like “voluntary payment,” “waiver,” “estoppel,” and “laches” failed. The court held that payments made under threat are not voluntary and that landlords must strictly adhere to the statutory process—not rely on tenant inaction or coercion.
  • Contractual Nature of Prospectus: The court reaffirmed that a Prospectus is not just a disclosure—it’s part of the binding rental agreement, with legal force equal to any signed lease.

The court granted summary judgment for the tenants on Counts I and II, holding MVMHP liable under the FCCPA, and preserved the remaining 12 counts for trial.

5 Critical Florida Compliance Rules for Landlords

Rule 1: Never Skip Statutory Approval (Fla. Mobile Home Act)

Florida law provides specific steps landlords—especially mobile home park owners—must follow before changing rental terms. This includes:

  • Securing regulatory approval for any Prospectus amendment.
  • Providing tenants with the required advance notice (90 days in this case).
  • Delivering the amended documents before enforcing new terms.

Skipping any step voids the change and opens the door to liability. This legal principle applies to all landlord actions against tenants.

Rule 2: Amended Contracts Trump Notices Alone

MVMHP thought that sending a 90-day notice was enough. It wasn’t. The court emphasized that approval and delivery of the amended Prospectus must occur before the changes take effect—even if notice is given. Knowing pre-conditions that must happen before being able to take action is critical for landlords.

Rule 3: Coercion = FCCPA Liability + Punitive Damages

Landlords are bound by the current agreement—whether it’s a lease or Prospectus. You can’t unilaterally decide to stop providing a service or start charging new fees or terms. The law and courts will hold you to the existing contract terms. Violating clear lease terms subjects landlords to liability and penalties.

Rule 4: Binding Contracts Can’t Be Changed Unilaterally

Threatening tenants—especially vulnerable ones—with eviction if they don’t comply with illegal charges is not only unethical, but it also supports claims of bad faith, coercion, and consumer protection violations. These actions can lead to punitive damages.

Rule 5: Class Actions Multiply Financial Exposure

This case was certified as a class action. That means instead of a single tenant suing for $30, the entire community of 97 tenants had a unified claim—multiplying the financial exposure significantly.

Florida Landlord Checklist: Avoiding FCCPA Lawsuits

  • Review all tenant contracts and governing documents before making billing changes.
  • Consult legal counsel before issuing notices, changing service terms, or amending leases.
  • Avoid verbal threats or pressure tactics with tenants—especially when there’s a dispute over fees.
  • Ensure all changes comply with both substantive and procedural requirements under Florida law.
  • Keep detailed records of approvals, notices, deliveries, and tenant communications.

Protect Your Business: Why Florida Legal Compliance Pays

McIntosh v. Missile View MHP, LLC is a vivid reminder that procedural missteps, even if unintentional, can carry massive consequences. Landlords must treat tenant relationships with the same legal care as business contracts—because that’s what they are.

If you’re unsure about your obligations, consult an experienced landlord attorney. The price of getting it wrong is much higher than the cost of doing it right.

Categories