ALAN SIMONS ASSOCIATES, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND ALAN SIMONS, INDIVIDUALLY, APPELLANTS,
v.
DELTAREACH CORPORATION, N.V., 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.
Alan Simons Associates and Alan Simons appealed a summary judgment against them in a lease dispute. The court reversed, finding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding oral promises allegedly made by the landlord's agent that would estop enforcement of the lease terms, and that the landlord's supporting affidavit was conclusory and inadequate.
Summary judgment was improper. The defendant Alan Simons' affidavit raised genuine issues of material fact precluding summary judgment, including regarding fraudulent oral inducement and estoppel. Additionally, Joseph I. Schweiger's affidavit in support of summary judgment was conclusory and inadequate to establish the amount of rent due, raising genuine issues of material fact regardless of whether estoppel applies.
[1] An affidavit raising genuine issues of material fact regarding oral inducements and fraudulent misrepresentations precludes summary judgment.
[2] A party may be estopped from enforcing strict lease terms based on an oral promise to only charge rent for occupied space, if that promise was fraudulently made.
Previewing 2 of 5 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 defendant Alan Simons' affidavit, filed below in opposition to the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, raises genuine issues of material fact which preclude summary judgment in this case”
Establishes the legal standard that material factual disputes created by defendant's affidavit prevent summary judgment
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendants Alan Simons Associates and Alan Simons (tenants) had previously leased and occupied demised premises. The plaintiff Deltareach Corporation …
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 Breach Of Personal Guaranty cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the defendants Alan Simons Associates, Inc. and Alan Simons, individually, from an adverse final summary judgment in an action brought below by the plaintiff Deltareach Corporation to collect on rent due under a lease and a personal guarantee of same. We reverse based on the following briefly stated legal analysis.
First, we conclude that the defendant Alan Simons’ affidavit, filed below in opposition to the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, raises genuine issues of material fact which preclude summary judgment in this case. In particular, the affidavit states (1) that the plaintiff’s agent orally induced the defendants (a) to remain on the demised premises [which the defendants had previously leased and occupied] and (b) to refrain from vacating same [which they allegedly had a legal right to do], by promising the defendant Alan Si-mons that the defendants would only be liable for rent as to the demised space actually occupied by the defendants, and (2) that the defendant Alan Simons was fraudulently induced to sign the subject guarantee based on this assurance. If this is true, we conclude that the plaintiff would be estopped from (1) enforcing the strict rental terms of the lease as to the unoccupied portion of the demised premises based on this allegedly fraudulent oral promise, and (2) enforcing the strict terms of the guarantee as to the same portion of the demised premises based on this same promise — and that the defendants would be liable for rent on the demised premises only as to the actual rental space occupied by the defendants. United of Omaha Life Ins. Co. v. Nob Hill Ass’n, 450 So. 2d 586, 539 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984).
Second, we conclude that Joseph I. Schweiger’s affidavit, filed below in support of the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, is entirely conclusory and woefully inadequate to establish the amount of rent due and owing in this case. Genuine issues of material fact are raised by this record as to the rent due under the subject lease and guarantee, whether an estoppel is ultimately found to be applicable to this case or not. See Spiwak v. General Real Estate Ltd., 546 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989).
The final summary judgment under review is therefore reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded.