H. KENDALL STEGEMAN AND DORIS STEGEMAN, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
BURGER CHEF SYSTEMS, INC., A CORPORATION, APPELLEE

Fla. 1st DCA | 1979-09-12
No. MM-172
McCORD, Acting C. J., BOOTH, J., and MELVIN, Associate Judge (Retired), concur.
374 So. 2d 1130 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (1979) Caution
Cited by 7 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

In this landlord-tenant dispute, the court reversed the trial court's judgment that relieved a lessee (Burger Chef) of all liability for property damage occurring during a twenty-month holdover period following lease termination. The court held that the implied obligation not to commit waste survives lease termination agreements and that the lessor is entitled to recover for damages caused after the termination date.


Holding

The court held that the implied obligation not to commit waste is inherent in the landlord-tenant relationship and survives lease termination. The termination agreement, which required Burger Chef to return the premises in the condition they existed on December 31, 1975, imposed a corresponding obligation on Burger Chef to maintain that condition, and the lessor may recover damages for waste occurring after termination.


Headnotes

[1] A lease termination agreement does not relieve a lessee of the obligation not to commit waste to the leased premises.

[2] A lessor's agreement to accept leased premises in their condition as of a certain date does not waive the right to recover for damages occurring after that date.

Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Key Quotes

“Implicit in the landlord-tenant relationship is the obligation on the part of the tenant not to commit waste to the leased premises.”

Establishes the fundamental principle that the duty not to commit waste is inherent to landlord-tenant law and cannot be waived by general release language in a termination agreement.

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

A twenty-year lease entered in 1968 was terminated by agreement on December 31, 1975, with Burger Chef paying $35,000 and agreeing to vacate and notif…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

This cause is before us on appeal from the judgment of the Circuit Court, Duval County, in a suit by a lessor for damages to leased premises. The judgment sought to be reviewed holds that a lease termination agreement relieved the lessee of all responsibility under the lease except for its obligation to pay rent for a period of time during which the lessee was unable to deliver the premises to the lessor in a vacant condition.

The undisputed facts are that a twenty year lease on the premises, entered into in 1968 between Merrill Road Center, Inc., assignor of the present lessor/owner the Stegemans, and lessee Burger Chef, was terminated by agreement of the parties on December 31, 1975, with the lessee paying the sum of $35,000 and agreeing to give notice to vacate to its subtenant, Tony’s Pizza King “as soon as this agreement is executed.” Burger Chef also agreed to pay rent for any period of time following December 31, 1975, during which it was unable to deliver the premises in a vacant condition to the lessor. The lessor released the lessee from “any and all obligations and claims arising under the lease” and agreed to accept possession of the premises “in such condition as the premises may be in as of December 31, 1975.” However, for a year and eight months after December 31, 1975, Burger Chef was unable to remove its subtenant from the premises and failed to deliver the premises in a vacant condition to the lessor until August of 1977. During that period of holding over by Burger Chef’s subtenant, considerable waste and damage was done to the lease premises for which the lessor seeks to recover against Burger Chef.

On Septembér 11, 1978, the trial court conducted a pretrial conference and, having considered both the original lease and the lease termination agreement, entered a pretrial order providing:

“ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the issues to be tried are:
1. The damage, if any, done to the demised premises between December 31, 1975, and August 17, 1977, and the reasonable costs of repairing any such damages.

2. The loss of reasonable rental value of the demised premises during the period necessary to make repairs of any damage done between said dates. . . . ” (e.s.)

At the hearing, the lessor, in accordance with the pretrial order, presented evidence as to the various damages to the premises occurring during the holdover period. The final judgment entered by the trial court, however, avoided the issues set forth in the pretrial order and ruled that there was no liability on the part of Burger Chef for the damages occurring during the some twenty-month period prior to August 17, 1977, because under the lease termination agreement the lessee, Burger Chef, was relieved of obligations under the pre-existing lease.

We reverse. Implicit in the landlord-tenant relationship is the obligation on the part of the tenant not to commit waste to the leased premises.1 The termination agreement between the parties in this case did not remove that obligation. On the contrary, the lessor agreed in the termination agreement to accept the premises in the condition in which they existed as of December 31, 1975, and the corresponding obligation of Burger Chef was to return the premises to the lessor in that condition. The lessor has the burden of proving the damages claimed to have occurred since December 31, 1975. The burden of proving what portion, if any, of the damages and cost of restoration resulted from normal wear and depreciation, not recoverable by the lessor is on Burger Chef. Cunningham Drug Stores, Inc. v. Pentland, 243 So. 2d 169 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970).

Accordingly, the judgment below is REVERSED and the cause REMANDED with directions that appellants be allowed to amend their complaint to allege a claim for attorney’s fees and that a new trial be held in accordance with the terms and provisions of the pretrial order of September 11,1978, and in conformity herewith. McCORD, Acting C. J., BOOTH, J., and MELVIN, Associate Judge (Retired), concur. . 20 Fla.Jur., Landlord and Tenant, § 126 at 378.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Kaplan v. Peterson, 674 So. 2d 201 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)
    …a)(2)(A)(v). . Obviously, Kaplan's remedies against his former lessee turn on other issues than those involved in this appeal. See Foliage Corp. of Florida, Inc., v. Watson, 381 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Stegeman v. Burger Chef Systems, Inc., 374 So. 2d 1130 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). . See, e.g., Wasser v. Sasoni, 652 So. 2d 411 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Green Acres, Inc. v. First Union National Bank of Florida, 637 So. 2d 363 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); The Haskell Company v. Lane Company, Ltd., 612 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 1st…
  • …en demised to the tenant. The common law refers to damage to a reversion by one in rightful possession of property as “waste.” E.g., Stephenson v. National Bank of Winter Haven, 92 Fla. 347, 109 So. 424 (1926); Stegeman v. Burger Chef Systems, Inc., 374 So. 2d 1130 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). When a residential dwelling unit is leased to the tenant, the tenant has the paramount legal, possessory, ownership interest in the use, benefit, and enjoyment of the property as the above authorities show. Thus, during the ter…
  • Multach v. Adams, 418 So. 2d 1254 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
    …tems were not repaired and constituted damages to the building. Such damages were contrary to the express terms of the lease, and particularly Paragraph Twelfth. Multach is entitled to judgment on this account. Stegeman v. Burger Chef Systems, Inc., 374 So. 2d 1130 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). See generally 34 Fla.Jur.2d, Landlord and Tenant, § 125. In final reference to this point concerning the changes in the building, the trial court found that Multach waived her [*1256] right to enforce that portion of the writte…

Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw