BERNARD SCHONINGER AND SCHONINGER ENTERPRISES, A FLORIDA PARTNERSHIP, COMPRISED OF HOWARD SCHONINGER AND BERNARD SCHONINGER D/B/A H.C. DEVELOPMENT, APPELLANTS,
v.
UNION OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, A FOREIGN CORPORATION AND OILUBE OF FLORIDA, INC., F/K/A MCQUICK'S OILUBE OF FLORIDA, INC. A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEES
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Equitable Remedies cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We find no error in the trial court interpreting a lease provision for a service station operating in connection with a shopping center, to require the lessee or his assigns to sell gasoline as well as oil and lubrication for automobiles. The lease required the lessee to operate a “typical” service station. It also required, under the use provision, for the sale of “ * * * petroleum products * *
The trial judge, in exercising equity power, has fashioned a remedy that is consistent with a reasonable interpretation of the responsibility of the parties to the lease and error not having been made to appear, we affirm. Hemphill v. Pesat, 98 Fla. 124, 123 So. 561 (1929); Food Fair Stores, Inc. v. Harte-Pen-TEQ Enterprises, Ltd., 275 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973); Phipps v. Sheffman, 211 So. 2d 598 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968); Marsh v. Hartley, 109 So. 2d 34 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Keller v. Keller, 521 So. 2d 273 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)…ng void until a claim was made for alimony and property by the wife in the dissolution proceeding. The trial court’s determination that appellant should be estopped from raising this defense was proper and, thus, affirmed. See also Seoane v. Seoane, 514 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Arnold v. Arnold, 500 So. 2d 739 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). We reverse the award of appellant’s interest in the Cocoa restaurant and real property used in connection with it, and the award of the Mercedes to appellee. Appellant claims…
-
Lambertini v. Lambertini, 655 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…reasons the husband was equitably estopped from raising the validity of the marriage, and annulment was improper. See McMichael v. McMichael, 158 Fla. 413, 28 So. 2d 692 (1947); Keller v. Keller, 521 So. 2d 273 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); Seoane v. Seoane, 514 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Arnold v. Arnold, 500 So. 2d 739 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). Each party also claims that the other was the active procurer of the invalid Mexican marriage. However, there is no evidentiary support in the record for the argument that one…
-
Lucilia Lopes v. Luciano Lopes, 852 So. 2d 402 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…reasons the husband was equitably estopped from raising the validity of the marriage, and annulment was improper. See McMichael v. McMichael, 158 Fla. 413, 28 So. 2d 692 (1947); Keller v. Keller, 521 So. 2d 273 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); Seoane v. Seoane, 514 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Arnold v. Arnold, 500 So. 2d 739 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). Id. at 143. The court made clear that it was not relying on the “fault” of either party in its ruling. It explained that where both parties thought the divorce was valid and n…
Authorities Cited
- Moran-Alleen Co. v. Brown, 98 Fla. 203 (Fla. 1929)
- Marsh v. Hartley, 109 So. 2d 34 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959)
- Hemphill v. Adolph Pesat, 98 Fla. 124 (Fla. 1929)
- City OF Melbourne v. Evans, 211 So. 2d 598 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968)
- Reed v. Jule Fink and Julie Miron, 275 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973)
- Food Fair Stores, Inc. v. Harte-Pen-Teq Enters., Ltd., 275 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973)