If someone wanted to sign a 12 month rental contract and, being over 70 and single, wanted that contract to terminate upon death of the renter so the landlord would not have right to claim payment from the estate for the remaining contract period and also required the landlord to release any personal belongings to heirs or executor. How might this be treated under Florida law?
['https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/67678', 'https://law.stackexchange.com', 'https://law.stackexchange.com/users/39019/']
It would be treated like a residential lease with whatever legal terms were agreed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The first term may need some careful drafting to comply with any minimum notice law Florida has. So a term that gave the estate the option to give 30 days notice or something similar.

The second term is unnecessary - you can’t keep other people’s stuff even if they owe you money.
> 
> What specific legal statement might one request to include in a 12 month rental contract so that the rental contract terminates upon renter's death?
> 
> 
> 

There is a risk that formulating an isolated statement or provision without us knowing other relevant clauses of the proposed draft might be superseded by those other clauses. The terms you have in mind seem to be "*The death of the renter terminates the contract and gives the landlord no entitlement to remedies against the tenant's estate for what would otherwise constitute breach or early termination of contract*". However, it is unclear from your description whether such terms would conflict with other language in the draft.

For instance, somewhere the draft might encompass tenant's successors or heirs, which would defeat the argument that the lease is of a *strictly personal nature*. See [*In re Estate of Conklin*, 116 Ill.App.3 426, 428 (1983)](https://www.leagle.com/decision/1983542116illapp3d4261481):

> 
> In [*Warnecke v. Estate of Rabenau* (Mo. App. 1963), 367 S.W.2d
> 15](https://www.leagle.com/decision/1963382367sw2d151379), the lease was for office space to be used for the specific
> purpose of the business of the lessee, a public accountant; the term
> "lessee" was defined to include servants, employees, and clients, but
> did not include successors, assigns, heirs, or personal
> representative. The Missouri court concluded that the terms of the
> lease made it personal to the lessee and thus terminated on his death.
> The court acknowledged the general rule that death does not ordinarily
> terminate the lease. [...] Two later Missouri cases [...] [were]
> residential leases were involved and provided that they were binding
> upon the heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns of
> both parties. The court held that this language was clear and
> unambiguous and that the leases were not personal.
> 
> 
> 

Florida law does not appear to have statutory or case law that would lead to a different conclusion.

*Warnecke* portrays that "*[t]he lease provided that the leased premises were to be used and occupied as office for certified public accountants, but for no other purpose"*". With this in mind, making sure that the lease identifies you as *the only tenant* would, *inter alia*, prevent the landlord from taking advantage of some principle akin to [*Goldenbaum v. Delorenzo*, No. 08-1127 (U.S. Dist. Court, N.J., Dec. 2010)](https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20101213747) ("*[t]he legislation was designed to protect residential tenants against unfair and arbitrary evictions by limiting the bases for their removal*"). That principle protects residential tenants, yet it might favor the landlord in the sense that a court ought not to disregard his "good faith adherence" to said legislative principle.