LA ROSA DEL MONTE EXPRESS, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
G.S.W. ENTERPRISES CORP., 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.
La Rosa Del Monte leased commercial property from G.S.W. to operate a moving and storage business, but was forced to vacate when the City of Miami found the use violated zoning ordinances. G.S.W. sued for breach and retained the security deposit. The appellate court reversed the jury verdict for G.S.W., holding that the lease was invalid for failure of consideration because the leased use was prohibited by law.
The court held that the lease is invalid for lack of consideration because the parties contracted for a use of property that was not allowed by law. The consideration wholly fails when the contemplated use is prohibited by zoning ordinances, and the parties should be mutually released with the tenant's security deposit returned.
[1] A lease agreement is invalid for lack of consideration when the agreed-upon use of the property violates applicable zoning ordinances.
[2] When a contract is invalid due to a complete failure of consideration, parties should be mutually released and any money paid should be returned.
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“Where parties contract for the use of a property which use is not allowed by law, the consideration wholly fails, and the money paid for the contract should be returned and the parties mutually released.”
Establishes the controlling legal principle that consideration fails when the leased use is prohibited by law, requiring mutual release and return of payments.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLa Rosa Del Monte entered into a lease agreement with G.S.W. to operate a moving and storage business on the leased premises, providing a security dep…
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 Illegal Contract cases and more on FLexlaw
HENDRY, Judge.
Defendant La Rosa Del Monte Express, Inc. (La Rosa Del Monte) appeals an adverse final judgment entered pursuant to a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff G.S.W. Enterprises Corp. (G.S.W.).
The relevant facts may be briefly stated. La Rosa Del Monte entered into a lease agreement with G.S.W. whereby La Rosa Del Monte agreed to lease certain property from G.S.W. for the purpose of operating a moving and storage business. The lease provided: “[t]he premises shall be used by Tenant for Moving, Shipping, Storage Business, crating, and storage of Chattels and other personal property of all description whether owned or not owned by Tenant and for no other purposes, and further, Tenant agrees to use entire leased premises as herein above provided.”
La Rosa Del Monte gave G.S.W. a security deposit of $1,860. It took possession of the property in December, 1979. In mid-1981, it vacated the property when it was served with a notice of violation by the City of Miami, ordering it to cease operation because its use of the property as a moving and storage business violated the city’s zoning. After La Rosa Del Monte abandoned the property, G.S.W. notified it that G.S.W. was retaining the security deposit and accelerating all payments due under the lease.
G.S.W. brought suit for breach of the lease agreement. La Rosa Del Monte answered with defenses and counterclaimed. After G.S.W. rested its case and at the close of all evidence, La Rosa Del Monte moved for a directed verdict. One of the grounds for its motions was that the contract was invalid for lack of consideration. The trial court denied La Rosa Del Monte’s motions for directed verdict. The jury returned a verdict in favor of G.S.W. for $24,000. La Rosa Del Monte moved for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, which the trial court denied. Subsequently, final judgment was entered on the verdict in favor of G.S.W. On appeal, La Rosa Del Monte’s primary contention is that the trial court erred in denying its motions for directed verdict and its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict,1 as the contract is invalid for lack of consideration. We agree and reverse the judgment of the trial court. Our disposition of this issue makes it unnecessary for us to consider the other claims raised by the appellant.
Where parties contract for the use of a property which use is not allowed by law, the consideration wholly fails, and the money paid for the contract should be returned and the parties mutually released. Marks v. Fields, 160 Fla. 789, 36 So. 2d 612 (1948). In Marks v. Fields, the plaintiffs leased the property from the defendants for the purpose of operating a used car business. The local zoning ordinance, however, prohibited the use of the property for that purpose. The court ruled that the contract was invalid as the consideration wholly failed.
The case at bar is virtually identical to the Marks case. La Rosa Del Monte leased the premises for the purpose of operating a moving and storage business. Its use of the property was specifically limited, under the lease, to those activities necessary to the operation of a moving and storage business. It was uncontradicted at trial that the use of the property as prescribed in the lease was in violation of Miami’s zoning ordinances. We find, as the court did in Marks, that the lease is wholly lacking in consideration. Accordingly, the parties should be mutually released and La Rosa Del Monte’s security deposit returned. We find no merit to La Rosa Del Monte’s claim for moving expenses.
For the foregoing reasons and based upon the authorities cited, the trial court’s final judgment is reversed and the court is directed to enter judgment in the appellant’s favor, such judgment to include the return of appellant’s security deposit.
Reversed.
. Under present practice, a “motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict” is now properly styled a "motion for judgment in accordance with motion for directed verdict.” Fla.R. Civ.P. 1.480(b). The trial court’s ruling on such motion is treated on appeal in accordance with the settled principles governing disposition of motions for directed verdict. Hendricks v. Dailey, 208 So. 2d 101 (Fla.1968); Greene v. Flewelling, 366 So. 2d 777 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 374 So. 2d 99 (Fla.1979); Hall v. Ricardo, 331 So. 2d 375 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
1700 Rinehart, LLC v. Advance Am., 51 So. 3d 535 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)…n the very purpose of an agreement has been totally frustrated by some outside force or circumstance is a familiar one indeed. See e.g. Marks v. Fields, 160 Fla. 789, 36 So. 2d 612 (1948); La Rosa Del Monte Express, Inc. v. G.S.W. Enterprises Corp., 483 So. 2d 472 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). But it has no proper application in a case such as this one, in which the particular potential obstacle was not only foreseen by the parties, but as to which they specifically bargained, with the [*538] risks of its occurrence di…
-
E. Coast Advertising, Inc. v. Wiseheart, 862 So. 2d 734 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)…oard, which was defended on the sole ground of failure of consideration because existing zoning restrictions in fact prevented that use. See Marks v. Fields, 160 Fla. 789, 36 So. 2d 612 (1948); La Rosa Del Monte, Inc. v. G.S.W. Enters. Corp., [*735] 483 So. 2d 472 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), review denied, 492 So. 2d 1332 (Fla.1986). The trial court, however, ruled as a matter of law that the defense was unavailable because the parties — most importantly the lessees, which were in the billboard business — (a) knew…
-
Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. of Conn. v. Sealey, 810 So. 2d 988 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)…e Florida courts have held that a motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict is obsolete and should now be styled as a motion in accordance with a prior motion for directed verdict. See La Rosa Del Monte Express, Inc. v. G.S.W. Enters. Corp., 483 So. 2d 472, 473 n. 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Meus v. Eagle Family Discount Stores, 499 So. 2d 840, 842 n. 6 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). However, other courts have continued to use the term “judgment notwithstanding the verdict” even after the adoption of rule 1.480(b). Se…
Authorities Cited
- Hendricks v. Dailey, 208 So. 2d 101 (Fla. 1968)
- Greene v. Flewelling, 366 So. 2d 777 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)
- Marks v. Fields, 160 Fla. 789 (Fla. 1948)
- Renate Hall & State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Ricardo, 331 So. 2d 375 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)