PALM BEACH PLAZA CENTER CORP., APPELLANT,
v.
CARTER CONTROLS, INC., APPELLEE
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.
A landlord must approve a tenant's assignment of a lease to another tenant when the assignee is financially responsible and the assignment does not materially alter the lease terms.
A landlord cannot unreasonably withhold consent to an assignment of a lease when the assignee is financially capable and the assignment does not materially change the lease obligations.
[1] A trial court's exclusion of evidence regarding lease assignment approval is harmless error when the same evidence is received in different form and relied upon by the op…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA landlord (Palm Beach Plaza Center Corp.) sought to prevent one tenant from assigning its lease in an office building to another tenant (Carter Contr…
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 Assignment Of Lease cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a judgment requiring the appellant landlord to approve an assignment of a lease from one tenant in appellant’s office building to another tenant, the appellee herein. We believe the evidence is sufficient to support the trial court’s ruling and accordingly reject the appellant’s challenge as to the sufficiency of evidence. We also find that although the trial court’s exclusion of certain evidence tendered by the appellant was error, such error was harmless under the circumstances of this case. Our examination of the record reflects that the trial court actually received the same evidence now asserted to have been excluded, albeit that evidence was received in a different form and at a different time during the trial. The record further reflects that such evidence was relied on by the, appellant in its final arguments to the trial court and in its petition for rehearing. No claim was made at those times that the trial court was handicapped because it had rejected the receipt of similar evidence earlier in the trial proceedings. We do not believe the appellant has demonstrated reversible error on this issue. Our ruling, however, is without prejudice to the appellant to rely on such evidence again when the issue of the appellee’s entitlement to attorney’s fees is considered.
Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. •
DOWNEY, ANSTEAD and GLICK-STEIN, JJ., concur.