HB 1015 would require flood-risk disclosures in several Florida real estate and housing transactions. For residential rental agreements of one year or longer, landlords would have to provide a separate written flood disclosure at or before lease execution stating whether they are aware of prior flood damage, whether they have filed flood-related insurance claims, and whether they have received flood assistance. The bill defines “flooding” and gives tenants a right to terminate the lease if the landlord failed to disclose truthfully and the tenant suffers substantial flood-related loss or damage to personal property.
The bill also expands and revises flood disclosure requirements for residential property sales under Florida’s real property disclosure law, and for developer contracts involving condominiums and cooperatives. Those disclosures would include whether the seller or developer knows of flood damage, has filed flood claims, or has received federal assistance, along with a standardized definition of flooding. In addition, mobile home park owners would have to provide similar flood disclosures to prospective lessees of mobile home lots, with a corresponding right to terminate the lot rental agreement if nondisclosure leads to substantial loss or damage.
The bill’s impact on state law is to add a new tenant disclosure section in chapter 83, revise existing flood disclosure provisions in chapter 689, and amend condominium and cooperative developer disclosure statutes in chapters 718 and 719. It also creates a new remedy for tenants and mobile home lot lessees: if the required flood disclosure is violated and qualifying damage occurs, they may terminate the agreement, recover prepaid amounts for future periods, and remain responsible only for amounts already owed before termination. The act is set to take effect October 1, 2025.
Overall sentiment appears favorable toward the policy goal of improving transparency about flood risk, especially in light of Florida’s exposure to flooding and storm damage. The bill advanced as a companion measure, and the available history shows the companion Senate bill passed while HB 1015 was laid on the table, suggesting the concept had legislative support even though this specific House bill did not move independently to enactment.
The main points of contention are likely to center on the scope and burden of the new disclosure duties, the accuracy and availability of historical flood information, and the new termination rights and refund obligations imposed on landlords, mobile home park owners, sellers, and developers. Property owners may view the bill as increasing liability and administrative requirements, while tenant and consumer advocates would likely support the added transparency and remedies for undisclosed flood risk.
HB 1015 would create new statutory flood-disclosure obligations for landlords of residential rental property, revise flood disclosure requirements for residential real property sales, and expand disclosure rules for condominium, cooperative, and mobile home lot transactions. It would also establish a tenant or lessee remedy allowing termination of a rental or lot agreement after undisclosed flood damage causes substantial loss, with refunds of prepaid amounts but no relief from preexisting debts. The bill amends chapters 83, 689, 718, 719, and 723, Florida Statutes.
The bill’s policy direction appears broadly supported as a consumer-protection and transparency measure, with the available legislative context indicating the companion measure passed. There is no recorded committee debate in the provided materials, but the structure of the bill suggests a generally pro-disclosure sentiment aimed at helping buyers, tenants, and mobile home residents better understand flood exposure before entering contracts. The fact that the House bill was laid on the table while the companion Senate bill became law suggests the substance was accepted even if the House vehicle was not the one used for final enactment.
Likely areas of contention include whether landlords, sellers, developers, and mobile home park owners can reliably determine and disclose prior flood history, and whether the bill’s separate-document requirement and standardized disclosures create unnecessary compliance burdens. Another possible point of dispute is the remedy: the bill gives tenants and lessees the right to terminate after substantial flood-related loss if disclosure was not truthful, which could be viewed by property owners as expanding liability and creating uncertainty in housing contracts. Consumer advocates would likely favor these protections, while real estate and landlord interests may be more cautious about the operational and legal consequences.