WILLIAM WHYHOPEN AND VICTORIA WHYHOPEN, APPELLANTS,
v.
ARTHUR B. VIA, HAZEL H. VIA, AND WARREN G. HARDING, AS TRUSTEE, APPELLEES
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.
Tenants leased property with a right of first refusal to purchase if the landlord decided to sell. When the landlord contracted to sell the leased premises along with contiguous property, tenants exercised their option to purchase only the leased portion on the same terms. The landlord refused and sold the entire parcel to a third party. The court held that tenants' right of first refusal was not limited to purchasing the entire parcel and reversed the dismissal of their complaint.
The court held that tenants were not required to exercise their right of first refusal as to all the land listed in the contract for sale, but only as to the leased premises. Once the landlord evidenced an intention to sell, the tenants' right of first refusal was converted into an irrevocable option to purchase that third-party purchasers are subject to.
[1] A right of first refusal in a lease is converted into an irrevocable option to purchase once the landlord evidences an intention to sell the property.
[2] A purchaser of leased premises is subject to the tenant's right of first refusal, even if the leased premises are sold as part of a larger parcel.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“The real and basic issue in this case, however, is simply whether the purchaser of this land, not only charged with knowledge of the rights of the lessee as a matter of law but placed on direct notice by the very provisions of the deed he accepted, may defeat the substantial rights of the lessee under the terms of this lease.”
Establishes that third-party purchasers are bound by lessees' rights and cannot defeat them through ignorance or the structure of the sale.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants Whyhopen leased property from appellee Via under a lease containing a right of first refusal provision. Via entered into a contract to sell…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Cancellation Of Deed cases and more on FLexlaw
HOBSON, Acting Chief Judge.
This appeal deals with a lease provision giving tenants the right of first refusal to purchase the leased premises. Appellants/tenants leased certain property from appellee/landlord. Under the terms of the lease, tenants were entitled to a right of first refusal in the event landlord decided to sell the premises. Landlord entered into a contract for sale of the leased premises and other parcels of contiguous property with a third party. Pursuant to the lease agreement, landlord delivered the contract to tenants. Within the prescribed time limit, tenants delivered to landlord’s agent a notice of exercise of option to purchase the leased premises upon the same terms and conditions as those contained in the contract for sale.
Landlord notified tenants that their right of first refusal would not be honored because tenants had not agreed to purchase the entire parcel described in the contract for sale. Landlord then proceeded to convey the entire parcel to the third party.
Tenants filed an amended complaint against landlord and third-party grantee seeking cancellation of the deed, specific performance of the lease agreement and damages from the grantee for tortious interference with contractual rights. Landlord and third-party grantee moved to dismiss the amended complaint, and the trial court granted the motion, apparently based on the fact that tenants did not exercise the option to purchase the entire parcel.
We rely on the case of Denco, Inc. v. Belk, 97 So. 2d 261 (Fla.1957). In that case the landlord conveyed the leased premises and other lands to Denco corporation without giving the tenant, Belk, the opportunity to exercise his right of first refusal. Belk filed a complaint alleging that the sale violated his rights under the lease and prayed that the conveyance be declared null and void as to the lands embraced within the lease. Belk also prayed that the court determine the value of the property covered by the lease, inasmuch as it had been included with other lands without a specific price being fixed on it.
After addressing issues not concerning us in the instant case, the supreme court stated:
The real and basic issue in this case, however, is simply whether the purchaser of this land, not only charged with knowledge of the rights of the lessee as a matter of law but placed on direct notice by the very provisions of the deed he accepted, may defeat the substantial rights of the lessee under the terms of this lease.... Denco, Inc. comes within the rule that persons dealing with an owner of land for purposes of sale or purchase who have knowledge of possession by a lessee, are placed on inquiry as to the full terms and conditions of the lease, including a provision granting a right of first refusal of purchase to the lessee if the lessor decides to sell the property during the term of the lease, [citations omitted] We think the law and every concept of equity and good conscience requires Denco, Inc. to recognize the rights of the lessee under all of the provisions of the lease under which he holds possession of the property, not the least of these being the option above alluded to.
Thus, appellees’ argument that tenants were required to exercise their option as to all the land listed on the contract for sale is incorrect. The Denco case clearly holds to the contrary.
Once the landlord evidenced an intention to sell the property, tenants’ right of first refusal was converted into an irrevocable option to purchase. Vorpe v. Key Island, Inc., 374 So. 2d 1035 (Fla.2d DCA 1979). The third-party purchaser is subject to this right.
Therefore, we reverse the trial court’s dismissal of the tenants’ complaint and remand this cause for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
BOARDMAN and DANAHY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wyhopen v. VIA, 443 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)…ion of a deed between defendants Via and Harding,1 specific performance of a lease agreement providing for right of first refusal to purchase the leased premises,2 and damages for tortious interference with contractual rights. Why open [sic] v. Via, 404 So. 2d 851 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). On remand, the trial court correctly tried the remaining issue to determine what price and terms would be “equal to” those contained in the Via-Harding contract to enable the plaintiffs to purchase only the leased premises. At…
-
THE Blind Monk, LLC v. 410 Evernia St. P'rs, LLC (Fla. 4th DCA 2023)…eases on the Whitney condominium units. the holder with its contractual right, a trial court must enforce the ROFR and determine what portion of the bulk sale purchase price should be allocated to the ROFR property. Similarly, in Whyhopen v. Via, 404 So. 2d 851 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981), the landlord refused to permit the tenant to exercise a right of first refusal where the landlord sold the leased property in a bulk sale with other properties. Id. at 852. The tenant filed suit against the landlord and the pur…
-
Holston Invs. Inc. v. Lanlogistics, 664 F. Supp. 2d 1258 (S.D. Fla. 2009)…be compelled to purchase more property than is subject to the right of first refusal, or else forfeit its refusal rights. Pantry Pride Enters., Inc. v. Stop & Shop Co., Inc., 806 F.2d 1227, 1229 (4th Cir.1986); see also Whyhopen v. Via, 404 So.2d 851 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). The rationale behind the rule is obvious. To allow parties subject to a right of first refusal to package the product or business that is the subject of the contract would be to allow that party to render the right of first refus…
Authorities Cited
- Denco, Inc. v. Belk, 97 So. 2d 261 (Fla. 1957)
- Vorpe v. KEY Island, Inc., 374 So. 2d 1035 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)