ASHLING ENTERPRISES, INC., D/B/A FOUR SEASONS MOBILE HOME ESTATES, APPELLANT AND CROSS/APPELLEES,
v.
RONALD C. BROWNING AND KAREN BROWNING, APPELLEES AND CROSS/APPELLANTS
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.
The court affirmed the trial court's finding that a mobile home park's rent increase was unconscionable based on reduced services and comparison to comparable parks, but reversed a post-judgment order entered after notice of appeal was filed due to lack of jurisdiction.
A rent increase for mobile home lots is unconscionable when it is excessive in light of reduced services and the rental rates charged by comparable mobile home parks in the vicinity.
[1] A rent increase for mobile home lots may be found unconscionable when the increase is disproportionate to any reduction in services and exceeds the rental rates charged b…
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 intelligenceAshling Enterprises, operating Four Seasons Mobile Home Estates, increased rent on mobile home lots; the trial court found the increase unconscionable…
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 Post-Judgment Orders cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Finding that sufficient evidence supports the trial court’s ruling that the amount of the increase in the rent charged for mobile home lots was unconscionable in light of the reduction in services and the amount of rent charged by comparable mobile home parks in the vicinity, we affirm the amended final judgment. See Helman v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad, 349 So. 2d 1187 (Fla.1977); Stewart v. Green, 300 So. 2d 889 (Fla.1974); Kohl v. Bay Colony Club Condominium, Inc., 398 So. 2d 865 (Fla. 4th DCA), review denied, 408 So. 2d 1094 (Fla.1981); cf. Aristek Communities, Inc. v. Fuller, 453 So. 2d 547 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984) (evidence does not support finding that rent increased beyond fair market rental value). Appellant’s remaining points lack merit.
As to the cross-appeal, we find that because the notice of appeal from the amended final judgment had been filed pri-or to the entry of the post-judgment order, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to entertain further proceedings relating to the subject matter of the appeal. Hudson v. Hofmann, 471 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Bailey v. Bailey, 392 So. 2d 49, 52 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). We therefore reverse the order under review and remand for an evidentiary hearing to determine a reasonable rent increase.
Amended final judgment affirmed; post-judgment order reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Belcher v. Kier, 558 So. 2d 1039 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)…ble law, including this court, B.J. Pearce v. Doral Mobile Home Villas, Inc., 521 So. 2d 282 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); see also, Colonial Acres v. Wallach, 558 So. 2d 25 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (Ferguson, J., dissenting); Ashling Enterprises, Inc. v. Browning, 487 So. 2d 56 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Garrett, 480 So. 2d at 1326; Aristek Communities, Inc. v. Fuller, 453 So. 2d 547 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). These cases make clear that the court must view unconscionability in a two-pronged approach, i.e., procedural uncon-scionabilit…1 / 3
-
Read v. Wyken, 541 So. 2d 1195 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See and Compare Vidibor v. Adams, 509 So. 2d 973 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); Ashling Enterprises, Inc. v. Browning, 487 So. 2d 56 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Garrett v. Janiewski, 480 So. 2d 1324 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Steinhardt v. Rudolph, 422 So. 2d 884 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).…
-
Colonial Acres Mobile Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. Wallach, 558 So. 2d 25 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…uncon-scionability, as a matter of law, under section 83.754). . In two cases the courts have continued to improperly apply the unconscionable standard to rental increases in cases brought pursuant to chapter 723: Ashling Enters., Inc. v. Browning, 487 So. 2d 56 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (rent increase unconscionable in light of reduction in services and comparable mobile home lot rental rates in the vicinity); Pearce v. Doral Mobile Home Villas, 521 So. 2d 282 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988) (ability of mobile home tenant to…
Authorities Cited
- Helman v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co. & William A. Cagle, 349 So. 2d 1187 (Fla. 1977)
- Kohl v. BAY Colony Club Condo., Inc., 398 So. 2d 865 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- Bailey v. Bailey, 392 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Hudson v. Hofmann, 471 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- Coleman Stewart and Maria Stewart v. Green, 300 So. 2d 889 (Fla. 1974)
- Aristek Cmtys., Inc. v. Fuller, 453 So. 2d 547 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)