PENSACOLA WINE AND SPIRITS DISTILLERS, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
GATOR DISTRIBUTORS, 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.
Pensacola Wine appeals a trial court order granting Gator Distributors immediate possession of leasehold property and requiring Pensacola Wine to vacate. The court reverses, holding that when a tenant exercises an option to purchase, it becomes an equitable owner under an executory contract, making ejectment the proper remedy rather than eviction, and the defendant must be allowed to plead affirmative defenses.
When a tenant exercises an option to purchase, the lease terminates and the tenant becomes an equitable owner pursuant to an executory contract. Ejectment is the proper cause of action, and the defendant must be permitted to amend the pleadings and assert affirmative defenses, even if the action was originally mislabeled as eviction.
[1] A lease is terminated when an option to purchase is exercised, transforming the vendee into an equitable owner under an executory contract.
[2] A court may not treat an eviction action as an ejectment action without allowing the party in possession to plead affirmative defenses to ejectment.
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 trial court correctly concluded that a lease is terminated when an option to buy is exercised. The vendee then becomes an equitable owner of the property pursuant to an executory contract.”
Establishes the legal principle that exercising a purchase option terminates the lease and creates an equitable ownership interest.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGator Distributors owned a warehouse on property leased from Burlington Northern Railroad and sued to evict Pensacola Wine, a tenant occupying the war…
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 Equitable Ownership cases and more on FLexlaw
BARFIELD, Judge.
Pensacola Wine and Spirits Distillers, Inc. (Pensacola Wine) appeals a non-final order determining that Gator Distributors, Inc. (Gator) is entitled to immediate possession of leasehold property and requiring Pensacola Wine to immediately vacate the property. We reverse.
Gator sued for eviction of Pensacola Wine from a warehouse owned by Gator on property leased from Burlington Northern Railroad. Pensacola Wine asserted that it was an equitable owner of the warehouse by reason of the exercise of an option to purchase, and therefore, eviction was not a proper remedy. Pensacola Wine contends that Gator must proceed in ejectment because Pensacola Wine is no longer a tenant under the lease agreement. The trial court correctly concluded that a lease is terminated when an option to buy is exercised. The vendee then becomes an equitable owner of the property pursuant to an executory contract. Atlantic Beach Improvement Corp. v. Hall, 143 Fla. 778, 197 So. 464 (1940). Where the trial court erred was in construing Bailey v. Bailey, 114 So. 2d 804 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959), to say that the court may treat an action for eviction as an action in ejectment without allowing the party in possession to plead affirmative defenses to ejectment.
The record before us suggests the trial court was correct in finding that an exercise of the option to buy had taken place, although it is not entirely clear that such was the case. Having thus concluded that ejectment was the proper cause of action for Gator, the trial court should have allowed Gator to amend and allowed Pensacola Wine to answer and assert its affirmative defenses. Turner v. Trade-Mor, Inc., 252 So. 2d 383 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971); David Miller Distributing Co. v. Florida National Bank, 342 So. 2d 856 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); and Seltzer v. Grine, 79 So. 2d 688 (Fla.1955). It remains to be seen whether any affirmative defenses can be raised that are not already before the trial court.
Bailey v. Bailey, supra, was an action filed as eviction in the chancery side of the court. After default and judgment was entered against the occupant of the property, the occupant within ninety days filed a claim for betterment which would be proper if the action had been in ejectment. What the court said was that the wrong label had been attached to the original action, and it should have been in the law side of the court. Since the default was entered and the appeal was dismissed on procedural grounds, nothing could be done to treat the original action for what it really was, i.e., ejectment. However, the court would not allow this misnomer of a cause of action to deprive the former occupant of the right to seek recovery for betterment.
REVERSED.
MILLS and WENTWORTH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pro-Art Dental LAB, Inc. v. V-Strategic Grp., LLC, 986 So. 2d 1244 (Fla. 2008)…ds its complaint to state a cause of action in a court of this State that possesses each of the following: personal jurisdiction, subject-matter jurisdiction, [*1254] and venue. Cf. Pensacola Wine & Spirits Distillers, Inc. v. Gator Distribs., Inc., 448 So. 2d 34, 35 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) (where plaintiff improperly pled a tenant-removal action instead of an ejectment action, the district court held that the trial court should have permitted both parties to amend their pleadings). Thus far, this has not occurr…
-
Grimm v. Huckabee, 891 So. 2d 608 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)…Statutes (2003), provides that "This part does not apply to: [*610] ... [o]ccupancy under a contract of sale of a dwelling unit or the property of which it is a part.” See also Pensacola Wine and Spirits Distillers, Inc. v. Gator Distributors, Inc., 448 So. 2d 34 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)(holding that when an option to buy is exercised and the lease terminated, vendee becomes an equitable owner of the property pursuant to an executory contract, and the proper action for landowner/vendor seeking possession is eject…
-
Twelfth Ave. Invs., Inc. v. Smith, 979 So. 2d 1216 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…parties were then bound by the terms within the option to purchase. As a result, Twelfth may seek possession of the property only through an action for ejectment, not eviction. See Pensacola Wine & Spirits Distillers, Inc. v. Gator Distribs., Inc., 448 So. 2d 34 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). The trial court correctly denied Twelfth’s complaint for possession based on the remedy of eviction. Based on the above, by invoking the right to purchase, the parties entered into a contract of sale, terminating the lease and…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Turner v. Trade-Mor, Inc., 252 So. 2d 383 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)
- Atl. Beach Improvement Corp. v. Vivienne E. Hall, 143 Fla. 778 (Fla. 1940)
- David Miller Distrib. Co., Inc. v. Fla. Nat'l Bank AT Arlington, 342 So. 2d 856 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)
- Seltzer v. Grine, 79 So. 2d 688 (Fla. 1955)
- Bailey v. Bailey, 114 So. 2d 804 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959)