Ontario trust account vs Florida escrow: where your deposit sits between offer and closing, and what happens if a dispute arises

Contents

1. Acronyms used in this guide
2. Why the third-party deposit holder matters
3. The Ontario trust account: TRESA, the listing brokerage, and the role of the lawyer
4. The Florida escrow: three eligible holders, one statute, multiple rule layers
5. Deposit timing: five business days in Ontario, three business days in Florida
6. Disputes in Ontario: cooperation, civil action, or a RECO Consumer Deposit insurance claim
7. Disputes in Florida: the four escape procedures and the 50,000 USD ceiling
8. Side-by-side comparison
9. Worked example: a 75,000 USD deposit on a Pompano Beach condo gone wrong
10. Common mistakes
11. Buyer's checklist for managing the deposit
12. Frequently asked questions

02. Why the third-party deposit holder matters

The deposit is the buyer's commitment to the seller, expressed in dollars, that the offer is real. Between offer acceptance and closing, the funds are held by a third party who has a duty to disburse them only as the contract or the law requires. The identity, regulation, and remedies of that third party determine what happens to the deposit if anything goes wrong.

In a smooth transaction, the deposit-holder question is invisible. The funds sit, are credited to the buyer at closing against the purchase price, and the buyer never thinks about them again. In a transaction that does not close, the deposit-holder question becomes the entire dispute. Who decides whether the buyer or the seller is entitled to the funds? On what timeline? Under what authority? At what cost?

Ontario and Florida have built different answers. The differences flow from a deeper structural divergence in how each jurisdiction closes a real estate transaction. Verified fact: in Ontario, the closing of a residential real estate transaction is conducted electronically through the Teranet system under Part III of the Land Registration Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L.4, with the buyer's lawyer and the seller's lawyer exchanging closing funds and documents under the protocols of the Law Society of Ontario. Florida has no equivalent electronic land registration regime, and closings are routinely conducted by title companies or attorneys without the centralized lawyer-to-lawyer protocol Ontario practitioners take for granted.

The deposit-holder question is downstream of that structural difference. In Ontario, the funds typically sit with the listing brokerage from offer acceptance until the brokerage transfers them to the buyer's lawyer or to the closing process near the completion date. In Florida, the funds typically sit with whichever entity will conduct the closing itself, and that entity is selected by the parties at the time the contract is signed.

For a Canadian buyer used to Ontario, the practical implication is that the deposit-holder choice in Florida is contractual, not near-automatic. The FAR/BAR contract has lines for the parties to designate the escrow holder by name, address, and phone number. Verified fact: under Rule 61J2-14.008(b), Florida Administrative Code, when a deposit is placed or to be placed with a title company or an attorney, the licensee who prepared the sales contract must indicate on that contract the name, address, and telephone number of the title company or attorney. The Ontario buyer who skips that section, or who accepts the seller's preferred choice without inquiry, has effectively delegated a key decision that Ontario practice would have made by default.

03. The Ontario trust account: TRESA, the listing brokerage, and the role of the lawyer

In Ontario, the standard path for the deposit is well-defined and narrow. Verified fact: under section 27 of TRESA, every brokerage is required to maintain a trust account at a designated financial institution into which funds received in trust must be deposited. Verified fact: under section 17(1) of Ontario Regulation 567/05, a brokerage that receives money in trust for another person in connection with the brokerage's business must deposit that amount in the trust account within five business days of receipt. Verified fact: under section 15 of the same regulation, each such account must be designated as a Real Estate Trust Account.

The OREA Form 100 Agreement of Purchase and Sale, which is the de facto standard residential contract in Ontario, designates a "Deposit Holder" by name. Verified fact: in Ontario residential practice, the Deposit Holder is almost always the listing brokerage, and the form's pre-printed wording places the deposit in the Deposit Holder's non-interest-bearing Real Estate Trust Account unless the parties amend the agreement to provide for an interest-bearing account. The deposit can be due "Herewith" with the offer, "Upon Acceptance" within 24 hours of acceptance, or "As Otherwise Described in this Agreement", typically by reference to a schedule.

The regulatory framework around the brokerage trust account is granular. Verified fact: Ontario Regulation 567/05 governs how brokerages must handle deposits, maintain records, reconcile trust accounts, and respond to RECO inspections. Verified fact: under section 19 of that regulation, a brokerage shall not engage in any transaction involving money held in trust unless the transaction is authorized by the brokerage's broker of record, who is the senior individual broker responsible for the brokerage's regulatory compliance.

Three protections matter for the Canadian buyer.

First, the brokerage trust account is segregated from the brokerage's operating funds. Verified fact: section 27 of TRESA and the related provisions of Ontario Regulation 567/05 prohibit commingling of trust funds with the brokerage's own funds, and breach of this rule is a common subject of RECO disciplinary action.

Second, the brokerage is subject to detailed bookkeeping obligations. Each trust deposit must be recorded, traceable, and reconciled. The broker of record is professionally responsible for the integrity of the trust account, and material failures expose the brokerage to RECO discipline up to and including registration revocation.

Third, the brokerage trust account is backed by mandatory insurance through the RECO Consumer Deposit Insurance Program. Verified fact: every Ontario real estate registrant is required, as a condition of registration under TRESA, to participate in the insurance program administered by RECO, which includes Errors and Omissions, Commission Protection, and Consumer Deposit coverage. Verified fact: the Consumer Deposit coverage provides up to a maximum of 200,000 CAD per claim and up to a maximum of 4,000,000 CAD in aggregate for all claims related to a single event, such as the insolvency of a brokerage. Verified fact: there is no deductible under this coverage, and the consumer is the claimant. Verified fact: when claims exceed the 4,000,000 CAD aggregate limit, recovery is pro-rated among claimants.

The role of the lawyer in Ontario practice is distinct from the role of the deposit holder. The buyer's lawyer is involved in the closing rather than in holding the earnest deposit. The deposit sits with the listing brokerage; the closing funds (the balance of the purchase price net of mortgage advances) sit in the buyer's lawyer's trust account, governed by By-Law 9 of the Law Society of Ontario. Verified fact: By-Law 9 imposes detailed trust accounting requirements on Ontario lawyers, including the use of Forms 9A through 9E for electronic trust transfers, mandatory monthly reconciliation, and immediate remittance of any interest earned to the Law Foundation of Ontario under section 57 of the Law Society Act.

For the Canadian buyer, the operational point is that the Ontario architecture concentrates the deposit with one regulated holder (the listing brokerage), backed by one regulated insurance program (the RECO Consumer Deposit coverage). The choice of Deposit Holder is technically contractual, but in practice it is almost never the buyer's brokerage, the buyer's lawyer, or anyone other than the listing brokerage.

04. The Florida escrow: three eligible holders, one statute, multiple rule layers

In Florida, the eligible escrow holders are broader. Verified fact: under Florida Statutes § 475.25(1)(k) and Rule 61J2-14.010(1), Florida Administrative Code, a real estate broker who holds escrow funds must place them in an insured escrow or trust account at a Florida bank, savings and loan association, trust company, credit union, or title company having trust powers. Verified fact: at least one broker must be a signatory on all such broker escrow accounts.

The contract may also designate a title company or a closing attorney as escrow holder, in which case the funds sit with that entity instead of with a broker. Verified fact: the FAR/BAR contract requires the escrow holder to be identified by name, address, and phone number, and Rule 61J2-14.008(b) requires the licensee who prepared the sales contract to indicate that information.

The most important practical difference from the Ontario model is therefore the choice of holder. In Florida, three configurations are common.

The first configuration is the broker as escrow holder. The buyer's deposit goes to the buyer's broker (or sometimes the listing broker), is placed in the broker's escrow account, and remains there until closing. Verified fact: under § 475.25(1)(k), a broker may keep up to 1,000 USD of personal or brokerage funds in a sales escrow account and up to 5,000 USD in a property management escrow account. The legislative intent is that minor commingling errors should not delay the disbursement of escrowed funds in the event of legal proceedings.

The second configuration is the title company as escrow holder. The deposit goes to the title company that will issue title insurance and conduct the closing. The title company holds the funds in its own trust account, generally under the supervision of the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation for title insurance aspects and DBPR for licensing aspects.

The third configuration is the closing attorney as escrow holder. The deposit goes to the law firm conducting the closing, held in a trust account governed by The Florida Bar's rules on lawyer trust accounts.

Verified fact: FREC's escrow disbursement order authority applies only to escrow funds held by Florida real estate brokers. Verified fact: under Rule 61J2-10.032(1)(a), the conflicting-demands notification requirement does not apply to funds held by title companies or attorneys. The dispute resolution path therefore depends on who holds the funds.

The implication for an Ontario buyer is significant. Choosing a title company or attorney as escrow holder means the funds are not subject to FREC's escrow disbursement order procedure if a dispute arises. That can be a feature, because the title company will typically interplead the funds with the local clerk of courts and let the parties litigate, which is a clean if slow path. It can also be a complication, because the buyer loses access to a relatively fast administrative remedy that exists when a broker holds the funds. There is no Florida equivalent of the RECO Consumer Deposit insurance ceiling: title company and attorney escrow holders are subject to their own professional liability frameworks, not to a centralized statutory insurance fund.

05. Deposit timing: five business days in Ontario, three business days in Florida

The timing rules differ in their numeric values but converge in their substance: the deposit must reach the trust account quickly, and the path is regulated.

In Ontario, the timing rule is statutorily fixed. Verified fact: under section 17(1) of Ontario Regulation 567/05, if money comes into a brokerage's hands in trust for another person in connection with the brokerage's business, the brokerage must deposit the amount in the trust account maintained under section 27 of TRESA within five business days. Verified fact: under section 17(2), Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays within the meaning of section 87 of the Legislation Act, 2006 are not counted as business days. Verified fact: RECO disciplinary practice routinely sanctions brokerages for failures to deposit funds within the prescribed window, treating delays beyond the rule as breaches of the trust accounting regulation.

In Florida, the timing rules are more granular and explicit. Verified fact: under Rule 61J2-14.008(3), Florida Administrative Code, "immediately" means the placement of a deposit in an escrow account no later than the end of the third business day following receipt of the item to be deposited, with Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays not counted as business days. Verified fact: under Rule 61J2-14.009, every sales associate who receives a deposit must deliver the same to the broker or employer no later than the end of the next business day following receipt. Receipt by a sales associate constitutes receipt by the broker for the timing rule.

For the Canadian buyer, two operational implications follow.

First, in Florida, the chain of custody for the deposit check has a documented timeline. The buyer who delivers a check to a sales associate on a Tuesday should expect the funds to be in the broker's escrow account, or at the title company's account, by end of business Friday. Any delay beyond that window is a documented violation of the rules and a basis for a complaint.

Second, the rule applies to broker escrow specifically. When the deposit is sent directly to a title company or attorney, the timing is governed by the contract terms and by the holder's professional rules, not by Rule 61J2-14.008. Verified fact: under Rule 61J2-14.008(b), within ten business days after each deposit is due under the sales contract, the licensee's broker must make written request to the title company or attorney to verify receipt of the deposit, unless the deposit is held by an attorney nominated in writing by the seller or seller's agent.

06. Disputes in Ontario: cooperation, civil action, or a RECO Consumer Deposit insurance claim

When an Ontario real estate transaction does not close, the deposit becomes the subject of competing claims. The dispute pathway in Ontario is less formalized than in Florida and depends heavily on the cooperation of the listing brokerage holding the funds.

The first path is mutual release. The listing brokerage, which has held the funds in trust, requires written instructions from both parties before disbursing. If the buyer and seller agree on disbursement, the brokerage disburses according to that agreement. The OREA standard mutual release form is the typical instrument. This is the modal outcome for transactions that fail without acrimony, particularly when a financing condition or a home inspection condition fails in the buyer's favour.

The second path is civil action. If the parties disagree, either party may file a civil claim in the appropriate Ontario court. Verified fact: under Ontario Regulation 626/00 (Small Claims Court Jurisdiction and Appeal Limit), as amended by O. Reg. 42/25 effective October 1, 2025, the monetary jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court is 50,000 CAD, exclusive of interest and costs. Verified fact: claims above 50,000 CAD proceed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, under the simplified procedure for amounts up to 200,000 CAD or under the ordinary procedure above. The brokerage holding the deposit is typically named as a stakeholder, holds the funds pending judgment, and disburses according to the court order.

The third path is a RECO Consumer Deposit insurance claim, in cases of brokerage misappropriation or insolvency. Verified fact: under the RECO insurance program, the Consumer Deposit coverage pays the consumer directly for loss of a deposit caused by an Insurance Program-defined occurrence, including the misappropriation of trust funds or the insolvency of a registered brokerage. Verified fact: the limits are 200,000 CAD per claim and 4,000,000 CAD in aggregate per occurrence, with no deductible.

The most prominent recent illustration is the iPro Realty Ltd. wind-up. Verified fact: in August 2025, RECO announced the wind-up of iPro Realty Ltd. and all its branches, following the disclosure of approximately 10.5 million CAD in shortfalls in iPro's consumer deposit and commission trust accounts, later reduced to approximately 8 million CAD as recoveries were made. Verified fact: the matter triggered both regulatory action and a Peel Regional Police investigation, and the consumer deposit insurance program was activated to assess and pay claims up to the program's coverage limits.

Opinion: the iPro episode illustrates two things at once. The Consumer Deposit insurance program is real and pays where it is meant to pay, which is more than can be said of the equivalent administrative remedy in many other jurisdictions. At the same time, the program does not protect every dollar in every scenario: claimants whose deposits exceeded 200,000 CAD do not recover the full balance from the program, and the aggregate cap matters when many consumers are exposed to the same brokerage failure at the same time.

The fourth path, which exists in theory but is rarely used in Ontario residential practice, is interpleader. The brokerage may pay the disputed funds into court and ask the court to determine entitlement between the buyer and the seller. Opinion: in Ontario practice, the cost and complexity of an interpleader application discourage its use for routine deposit disputes. The combination of mutual release, Small Claims Court for smaller amounts, and the Consumer Deposit insurance program for misappropriation cases covers most real-world fact patterns.

Opinion: the Ontario dispute architecture is well-suited to common cases (financing condition failure, home inspection-driven deal collapse) where parties cooperate. It is less efficient for cases where parties contest entitlement to the deposit on the merits, because no fast administrative remedy exists comparable to Florida's escrow disbursement order. For mid- to high-value deposits, civil action remains the practical path.

07. Disputes in Florida: the four escape procedures and the 50,000 USD ceiling

Florida's escrow dispute architecture is uniquely structured. Verified fact: under § 475.25(1)(d)(1), when a Florida broker who holds escrow funds receives conflicting demands or has good-faith doubt as to which party is entitled to the funds, the broker must, within 15 business days of the conflicting demand or doubt, notify FREC and select one of four "escape procedures" within 30 business days of the last party's demand.

The four escape procedures are listed in the statute.

The first procedure is to request that FREC issue an Escrow Disbursement Order. Verified fact: an EDO is an administrative determination by FREC of who is entitled to the disputed funds. Verified fact: FREC will not issue an EDO if the disputed amount exceeds 50,000 USD, in which case the broker must use a different escape procedure. Verified fact: if the broker promptly employs an escape procedure and abides by the resulting order, no administrative complaint may be filed against the broker for failure to account for the escrow.

The second procedure is to submit the matter to arbitration with the consent of all parties. The arbitrator's decision is binding.

The third procedure is to interplead the funds with a court or otherwise seek judicial adjudication. The broker deposits the funds with the court clerk, and the parties litigate entitlement.

The fourth procedure is to submit the matter to mediation with the written consent of all parties. Verified fact: the mediation process must be successfully completed within 90 days following the last demand, failing which the broker must promptly employ one of the other escape procedures.

The escape procedures apply to broker-held escrow only. Verified fact: when the deposit is held by a title company or an attorney, the title company or attorney is not subject to FREC jurisdiction in respect of escrow disbursement, and the dispute is typically resolved through interpleader to a Florida court or through the title company's internal release-and-cancellation procedures.

The 50,000 USD EDO ceiling has practical importance for Ontario buyers in mid- to high-value Florida transactions. Typical range: a 5 percent deposit on a 1,500,000 USD purchase is 75,000 USD. If that deposit is in dispute and held by the broker, FREC will not issue an EDO; the broker must arbitrate, interplead, or mediate. The parties' actual recovery path is therefore driven by which procedure the broker selects and by whether the parties consent.

For an Ontario buyer used to a 200,000 CAD insurance ceiling that pays the consumer directly without a civil judgment, the Florida 50,000 USD administrative ceiling looks lower in nominal terms and works on a different mechanism. The 200,000 CAD figure is an insurance recovery against misappropriation or insolvency. The 50,000 USD figure is an administrative dispute resolution on the question of who is entitled to the funds. They are not comparable on a like-for-like basis, but both define the upper bound of fast-track resolution in their respective systems.

08. Side-by-side comparison

The following table maps the principal escrow architecture across the two jurisdictions, with explicit jurisdictional headers.

09. Worked example: a 75,000 USD deposit on a Pompano Beach condo gone wrong

Consider an Ontario buyer who signed a FAR/BAR contract for a 1,500,000 USD condominium in Pompano Beach in early 2025. The buyer placed a 75,000 USD deposit, held by the listing broker's escrow account in accordance with the contract. The contract included a financing contingency with a 30-day deadline.

On day 28, the buyer's mortgage commitment falls through due to underwriting issues unrelated to the buyer's good faith. On day 32, the buyer notifies the seller in writing that the financing contingency has not been satisfied and demands return of the deposit. The seller refuses, alleging that the buyer did not pursue financing in good faith and is therefore in default. The seller demands the deposit be released to the seller as liquidated damages.

The broker holding the escrow now has conflicting demands.

Step 1: 15-business-day FREC notification. Verified fact: under Rule 61J2-10.032(1)(a), the broker must notify FREC of the conflicting demands within 15 business days of receipt.

Step 2: 30-business-day escape procedure selection. The broker has 30 business days from the seller's last demand to select one of the four escape procedures.

Step 3: practical analysis. Because the disputed amount (75,000 USD) exceeds the 50,000 USD EDO ceiling, the broker cannot request a FREC EDO. The remaining options are arbitration (with consent of both parties), interpleader (with judicial adjudication), or mediation (with consent and a 90-day completion deadline).

Path A: arbitration. If both parties consent, an arbitrator hears the dispute and issues a binding decision. Typical range: arbitration costs in Florida real estate disputes vary from 3,000 USD to 15,000 USD depending on complexity and arbitrator selection. The decision typically arrives within four to eight months.

Path B: interpleader. The broker files an interpleader action in Florida circuit court, depositing the funds with the court clerk and naming the buyer and seller as adverse claimants. Verified fact: under § 475.25(1)(d), this discharges the broker's escrow obligation. The parties litigate entitlement. Typical range: an interpleader proceeding through trial can take 12 to 24 months and cost each party 15,000 USD to 60,000 USD in legal fees.

Path C: mediation. The parties consent to mediation, retain a Florida real estate mediator, and attempt to resolve within 90 days. Typical range: mediation costs 1,500 USD to 6,000 USD depending on complexity. Success rates in real estate deposit disputes are estimated above 60 percent when both parties are negotiating in good faith.

For comparison, in Ontario, the equivalent fact pattern would unfold differently. The buyer, having a financing condition that failed, would typically receive the deposit back from the listing brokerage upon a signed mutual release confirming the condition failure. If the seller contested entitlement, the brokerage would hold the funds until the parties reached agreement or until an Ontario court ordered disbursement. The 75,000 USD amount is roughly 102,000 CAD at recent exchange rates, which is above the Small Claims Court ceiling (50,000 CAD), so the dispute would proceed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice under the simplified procedure for claims up to 200,000 CAD.

Opinion: the Florida architecture is more aggressive about forcing dispute resolution within a defined timeline (15 days notification, 30 days procedure selection), but for amounts above 50,000 USD it does not provide the fast administrative path that the EDO offers below that threshold. The Ontario buyer who deposits more than 50,000 USD in Florida escrow, regardless of property price, should plan for a months-long resolution timeline if the deal falls apart contentiously.

10. Common mistakes

The errors below recur in Canadian buyer files reviewed in Florida purchase scenarios. They are presented with their consequence so the reader can recognize them in advance.

The first mistake is accepting the seller's choice of escrow holder without inquiry. The contract designates the holder. Opinion: an Ontario buyer who agrees to escrow with a title company or law firm selected by the seller, without verifying the entity's reputation, regulatory status, and history, has accepted a counterparty risk that was not necessary to accept. The buyer's own counsel can usually nominate or vet the escrow holder.

The second mistake is paying the deposit by personal cheque made out to the seller rather than to the escrow holder in trust. Verified fact: under Florida law, the deposit must go to the escrow holder, not to the seller. A cheque made out to the seller is not properly placed in escrow and does not benefit from the protections of § 475.25 and Rule 61J2-14.010. Ontario practice is similarly strict: a deposit cheque payable to the listing brokerage in trust is the standard, and a deposit cheque payable to the seller individually would be a serious procedural error.

The third mistake is failing to obtain the deposit receipt. Verified fact: Ontario brokerages are required to maintain detailed trust accounting records under Ontario Regulation 567/05, and the buyer is entitled to a receipt confirming the deposit and the account into which it was placed. Verified fact: Florida title companies and attorneys typically issue a receipt or wire confirmation. The Ontario buyer who pays a Florida deposit and does not retain documentation has no evidentiary baseline for any later dispute.

The fourth mistake is conflating the escrow holder's role with the buyer's representative role. The escrow holder is a neutral stakeholder. The escrow holder does not advocate for the buyer. An Ontario buyer who relies on the title company for legal advice on the contract or the dispute is conflating two distinct functions.

The fifth mistake is missing the 15-business-day FREC notification window when the broker holds escrow. Opinion: the buyer's role here is indirect, the broker is the one who must notify FREC, but the buyer who allows the broker to drift past the deadline without prompting risks losing access to the EDO procedure on technical grounds. Ontario buyers represented by Florida counsel typically have counsel monitor the timeline.

The sixth mistake is depositing more than 50,000 USD in earnest money without considering the EDO ceiling. Opinion: for purchase prices above 1,000,000 USD, the standard 5 percent earnest money places the deposit above the EDO threshold. The buyer can negotiate either a smaller initial deposit followed by a second deposit at end-of-inspection-period, or can accept the higher litigation exposure in exchange for the seller's confidence in the buyer's commitment.

The seventh mistake is selecting the same broker as escrow holder when the broker represents both sides as transaction broker. Opinion: the structural conflict is manageable but real. The broker who holds the deposit and works with both sides has a procedural duty to disburse on conflicting demands, but the contractual reality is that the broker's relationships with both parties remain. Title company or attorney escrow is often cleaner in this configuration.

The eighth mistake is assuming Ontario-style protections apply in Florida. Opinion: the RECO Consumer Deposit insurance does not extend to Florida transactions. An Ontario registrant cannot hold a deposit on a Florida property in the way an Ontario brokerage holds a deposit on an Ontario property. The Florida system has its own protections, including a Real Estate Recovery Fund administered by FREC, but the architecture, limits, and triggers are different. Verified fact: under § 475.483 of the Florida Statutes, the Real Estate Recovery Fund pays claims for actual or compensatory damages caused by certain violations by Florida real estate licensees, subject to a 50,000 USD per-transaction cap and a 150,000 USD per-licensee aggregate cap, and a civil judgment is generally required before recovery.

11. Buyer's checklist for managing the deposit

The following ten actions translate the regulatory architecture into operational discipline for an Ontario buyer transacting in Florida.

1. Identify the escrow holder by name, address, and phone number on the FAR/BAR contract before signing. Do not leave the field blank or accept a vague designation.
2. For purchases above 750,000 USD, instruct your Florida counsel to vet the proposed escrow holder, including verifying the title company's licensing, the law firm's trust account standing, or the broker's escrow account history.
3. Pay the deposit by certified cheque, bank draft, or wire transfer made out in the name of the escrow holder in trust. Never make the cheque out to the seller or to a sales associate personally.
4. Request a receipt from the escrow holder confirming the deposit and stating the account into which it was placed. Retain the receipt with the rest of the transaction file.
5. If a title company or attorney holds the escrow, confirm that within ten business days the buyer's broker has obtained written verification of receipt as required by Rule 61J2-14.008(b).
6. Read the contract clauses governing deposit forfeiture and refund. Identify, before signing, the conditions under which the deposit returns to the buyer (financing failure, inspection failure, title issues) and the conditions under which it is forfeited to the seller.
7. If a financing or inspection contingency is critical to your decision, structure the deposit in two stages: a smaller initial deposit, with the balance triggered by satisfaction of the contingency, rather than a single lump deposit.
8. Calendar the financing and inspection deadlines with reminders set seven days before. Missing a contingency deadline by hours, in Florida practice, can result in deposit forfeiture.
9. If a dispute arises, retain Florida real estate counsel within five business days. The 15-business-day FREC notification window and the 30-business-day escape-procedure selection window run quickly.
10. Preserve all deposit-related documents, communications, and contract amendments for a minimum of seven years after closing or after dispute resolution.

12. Frequently asked questions

Can my Florida deposit be held by an Ontario brokerage or my Ontario lawyer? Verified fact: under Florida law, the escrow holder must be located and doing business in Florida, with the funds in an insured Florida account. An Ontario brokerage is registered under TRESA and licensed to trade in real estate in Ontario, not in Florida. An Ontario lawyer is licensed by the Law Society of Ontario for the practice of law in Ontario. Neither satisfies the Florida regulatory framework for holding an escrow on a Florida transaction. The deposit can be wired from a Canadian source, but the holder must be Florida-based.

What happens to the interest earned on my Florida escrow deposit? Verified fact: under Rule 61J2-14.014, escrow funds may be placed in an interest-bearing account only with the express written permission of all parties to the transaction. The contract typically specifies who receives the interest, often allocating it to the seller or splitting it. In practice, for typical 30 to 60 day escrow periods, the interest amounts are modest. The Ontario default under OREA Form 100 is that the deposit sits in a non-interest-bearing trust account unless the parties amend the agreement, which is a different default rule.

Can the broker who holds my Florida escrow charge a fee for holding the funds? Generally no. The escrow service is part of the broker's regulated function. Verified fact: the broker may not commingle or appropriate trust funds. Some non-broker holders, such as title companies, may charge a modest escrow fee separate from the closing services fees.

If the deposit holder goes bankrupt, what happens to my deposit? Verified fact: a properly held escrow deposit is not the holder's property; it is client money held in trust. In bankruptcy, properly segregated escrow funds are not part of the holder's bankruptcy estate. The risk arises if the holder commingled or misappropriated the funds, in which case the buyer's recovery depends on insurance, recovery funds, or civil action. The recent iPro Realty wind-up in Ontario is a useful illustration: when shortfalls were discovered in iPro's consumer deposit and commission trust accounts in August 2025, the RECO Consumer Deposit insurance program was activated to pay claimants up to the program's per-claim and aggregate limits.

Does FIRPTA withholding affect the escrow deposit? No. Verified fact: FIRPTA, under IRC § 1445, applies to the seller's net proceeds at closing for non-resident sellers. The buyer's deposit is the buyer's own money and is not subject to FIRPTA withholding. FIRPTA mechanics affect the closing statement, not the deposit mechanism.

Can my Ontario brokerage hold the deposit for a Florida transaction? No. Verified fact: an Ontario brokerage is registered under TRESA and is not licensed to conduct a Florida real estate transaction or to hold funds in escrow under Florida law. The Ontario brokerage can refer the Canadian buyer to a Florida licensee, but the deposit will be held by a Florida-eligible holder.

What if the seller refuses to sign release-and-cancellation documents to release my deposit? Verified fact: this is the conflicting-demand scenario that triggers § 475.25(1)(d) when the broker holds the escrow. When a title company holds the escrow, the title company typically requires both parties' signatures or interpleads the funds with the court. The buyer's path is then arbitration, mediation, or litigation.

Can I recover legal fees if I prevail in a Florida escrow dispute? Verified fact: under § 475.483(3), if the claim is of the type described in § 475.482(2) (broker compelled by court to comply with EDO), FREC pays the defendant broker's reasonable attorney's fees and court costs and, if the plaintiff prevails, the plaintiff's reasonable attorney's fees and court costs. In other dispute configurations, attorney's fees follow the contract's fee-shifting provisions and Florida's general rule that each party bears its own fees absent a contractual or statutory basis. The Ontario default rule is also that costs follow the cause, but with a different scale of recovery and different cost-shifting mechanics under the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure.

Has anything changed recently in Ontario that affects my comfort with leaving a deposit with an Ontario brokerage? Verified fact: the iPro Realty Ltd. closure in August 2025 disclosed approximately 10.5 million CAD in trust account shortfalls, later reduced to approximately 8 million CAD as recoveries were made, and triggered both regulatory action and a Peel Regional Police investigation. Verified fact: the RECO Consumer Deposit insurance program responded by assessing and paying eligible claims up to the program's per-claim and aggregate limits. Opinion: the episode does not invalidate the Ontario architecture, which paid out as designed, but it underscores that consumers should not assume "this is how it has always been done" is sufficient protection. Verifying the brokerage's registration status with RECO before paying a deposit, and confirming the trust account information, are simple steps that no Ontario buyer should skip.

---

Editorial team

CanadaFlorida Editorial Team. Research drawn from primary public sources cited at the bottom of every guide: U.S. and Florida statutes, U.S. and Canadian federal agencies, official Florida county and state authorities, and Canadian provincial bodies where applicable.

Every figure, rate, threshold, and deadline in this guide is drawn from a verifiable primary source listed at the bottom of the page. The article is updated whenever the underlying rules change, with a fresh review date stamped at the top.