S.A. RIZZO AND W. GEORGE KENNEDY, APPELLANTS,
v.
NARANJA LAKES CONDOMINIUM ASSOC. NUMBERS ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR AND FIVE, 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.
In a dispute over maintenance obligations under a 99-year net lease of condominium common areas, the court held that the lessee, not the lessor, bears the duty to make all repairs absent a specific contrary provision in the lease. The trial court's ruling imposing capital improvement obligations on the developer-landlords was reversed.
The lessor was not required to make capital improvements or any repairs. Under established Florida law, the lessee bears the duty to make repairs absent a specific undertaking to the contrary. The ordinary wear and tear exception merely relieves the lessee of maintaining the property in like-new condition but does not impose affirmative obligations on the lessor.
[1] In the absence of a specific contractual provision to the contrary, a lessee, not a lessor, bears the duty to make all repairs to the demised premises.
[2] A "net lease" does not, by itself, impose an affirmative obligation on the lessor to make capital improvements.
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“It is established Florida law that the lessee, not the lessor, has the duty to make repairs of any kind to the demised premises in the absence of a specific undertaking to the contrary.”
Establishes the fundamental principle that the lessee bears repair obligations unless the lease expressly provides otherwise
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe developers-landlords leased the common areas of a condominium complex to the condominium association under a 99-year net lease. A dispute arose ov…
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 Capital Improvements cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
The trial judge ruled that the developers-landlords under a 99-year “net lease” 1 of the common areas of a condominium complex were “required under the lease to make all capital improvements required when a condition of disrepair can not be' corrected by ordinary maintenance and repairs.” We reverse.
It is established Florida law that the lessee, not the lessor, has the duty to make repairs of any kind to the demised premises in the absence of a specific undertaking to the contrary. See Fischer v. Collier, 143 So. 2d 710 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962); Easton v. Weir, 125 So. 2d 115 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960), cert. denied, 129 So. 2d 141 (Fla. 1961). No such provision appears in the lease involved here.
Indeed, the only covenant on the repair issue is one which reflects what would anyway be the case under the law even in its absence; it requires the tenant to make the repairs now in issue:
ARTICLE V
**
The Lessee herein during the full term of this lease, shall keep and maintain at the Lessee’s own expense any and all buildings, interior and exterior, and improvements and all personal property now on the premises or which may hereafter be placed upon the leased premises in good and substantial order and repair, ordinary wear and tear excepted_ [emphasis supplied]
The appellees’ reliance on the last emphasized clause is of no avail. The exception of “ordinary wear and tear” merely relieves the lessee of any duty to the landlord to maintain the leasehold in a “like-new” condition. See Connell v. Brownstein-Louis Co., 86 Cal.App. 610, 261 P. 331 (1927); 49 Am.Jur.2d Landlord and Tenant § 939 (1970); see City of St. Petersburg v. Competition Sails, Inc., 449 So. 2d 852 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Fischer, 143 So. 2d at 712-13; Plate Glass Underwriters’ Mut. Ins. Co. v. Ridgewood Realty Co., 219 Mo. App. 186, 269 S.W. 659 (1925); 51C C.J.S. Landlord and Tenant § 368(9) (1968). It does not affect the general obligations owed by the tenant under Article V, much less result in any affirmative obligation being imposed upon the lessor. See City of St. Petersburg, 449 So. 2d at 854; McKenzie v. Atlantic Manor, Inc., 181 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965), cert. denied, 192 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 1966); 34 Fla.Jur.2d Landlord and Tenant §§ 61-62 (1982).
For these reasons,2 the order under review is reversed and the case remanded with directions to dismiss the complaint with prejudice.
. See Levitz Furniture Co. v. Continental Equities, Inc., 411 So. 2d 221 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982),pet. for review denied, 419 So. 2d 1196 (Fla. 1982).
. The appellees’ alternative argument for affirmance has been rejected by this court in Naranja Lakes Condominium Ass’n v. Rizzo, 490 So. 2d 1266 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Vignaraj Munsami Pillay v. Pub. Storage, Inc., 284 So. 3d 566 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019)
-
Grand Harbor Golf & Beach Club, Inc. v. Grand Harbor Golf Club, LLC, L.P. (Fla. 4th DCA 2024)
Authorities Cited
- Easton v. Weir, 125 So. 2d 115 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960)
- Levitz Furniture Co. OF the E. Region, Inc. v. Cont'l Equities, Inc., 411 So. 2d 221 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- The City OF ST. Petersburg v. Competition Sails, Inc., 449 So. 2d 852 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- Fischer v. Barron Collier, Jr., 143 So. 2d 710 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)
- LaKay McKENZIE v. Atl. Manor, Inc., 181 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Florida Sun Deck Homes v. Moore, 129 So. 2d 141 (Fla. 1961)
- Pankonin v. Adimi, 129 So. 2d 141 (Fla. 1961)
- Atl. Manor, Inc. v. McKENZIE, 192 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 1966)
- Abenkay Realty Corp. v. Dade Cnty., 192 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 1966)