VIBRANT VIDEO, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
DIXIE POINTE ASSOCIATES, 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.
Vibrant Video appeals summary judgment entered against it as a commercial tenant for breach of lease. The court reversed, holding that the landlord's claim for future rent losses must be reduced to present value, a calculation the trial court failed to perform.
The court held that the trial court erred by entering summary judgment without reducing future monetary losses to present value. The tenant's first contention regarding mitigation of damages failed because no disputed issue of material fact was created, but the second contention had merit.
[1] A landlord's claim for future rental losses must be reduced to present value.
[2] A tenant's submission of evidence opposing a landlord's motion for summary judgment is sufficient to raise a disputed issue of material fact regarding the present value o…
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“The only recoverable element of the plaintiff's claim to future monetary losses is their present value.”
Establishes that present value is a mandatory calculation element in computing damages for future losses, not a discretionary mitigation factor.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceVibrant Video entered into a five-year commercial lease with Dixie Pointe Associates for space in a shopping center. Midway through the lease term, th…
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 Commercial Lease cases and more on FLexlaw
COPE, Judge.
Vibrant Video, Inc., the tenant under a commercial lease, appeals an adverse summary judgment. We reverse.
The tenant entered into a five-year lease for space in a shopping center owned by landlord Dixie Pointe Associates, Inc. Midway through the lease, the tenant vacated the premises. The landlord relet the premises at a lower rental and sued the tenant for the rental difference over the balance of the lease term. The landlord also demanded the unpaid installments of rent for the period prior to the reletting. The trial court entered summary judgment for the landlord and the tenant has appealed.
The tenant first contends that there was a disputed issue of material fact with respect to whether the landlord had relet at an unreasonably low rental and therefore failed to mitigate its damages to the extent possible. To the contrary, we conclude that the tenant’s submissions did not create a disputed issue of material fact on that point.
The second point on appeal, however, has merit. The tenant contends that the award of rent due for the balance of the term * must be reduced to present value. We agree. See Fountas v. Ziegler, 305 So. 2d 864, 865-66 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); § 768.77, Fla.Stat. (1989). The trial court erred by entering summary judgment for the full amount of the landlord’s claim for future losses without reduction to present value.
This court has said:
The appellees are clearly conceptually incorrect in their contention that present money value involves an issue of mitigation of the plaintiff’s otherwise-established damages as to which the defendant bears the burden of proof_ Instead, the only recoverable element of the plaintiff’s claim to future monetary losses is their present value.
Seaboard Coast Line R. Co. v. Burdi, 427 So. 2d 1048,1050 n. 4 (Fla. 3d DCA) (citation omitted; emphasis in original), review dismissed, 431 So. 2d 988 (Fla.1983); see Fountas, 305 So. 2d at 866. In the present case the landlord moved for summary judgment, thereby undertaking the burden of showing the nonexistence of any disputed issue of material fact, as well as entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Fla. R.Civ.P. 1.510(c). The landlord concedes that it bore the burden of proof, but contends that tenant did not raise the issue of present value below. Contrary to the landlord’s assertion here, the tenant opposed the motion on that specific ground, among others. We reverse the final summary judgment and remand for determination of the present value of the landlord’s claim for future monetary losses.
Reversed and remanded.
*
That part of the award was for future rental installments under the lease less the amount due from the reletting. See Kanter v. Safran, 99 So. 2d 706, 707 (Fla.1958); see generally Williams v. Aeroland Oil Co., 155 Fla. 114, 20 So. 2d 346 (1944); CB Institutional Fund VIII v. Gemballa U.S.A., Inc., 566 So. 2d 896 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
W.R. Grace & Company-Conn. v. Pyke, 661 So. 2d 1301 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…the amount of damages awarded. The verdict of $810,000.00 is so excessive as to “shock the judicial conscience” and it cannot withstand “appellate scrutiny.” Accordingly, the verdict cannot stand. See Vibrant Video, Inc. v. Dixie Pointe Associates, 567 So. 2d 1003 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); see also Haddigan v. Harkins, 441 F. 2d 844 (3d Cir. 1971); Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Bur-d% 427 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). The judge who presided over the trial was not available to consider defendants’ post-trial mot…
-
Quintero-Chadid Corp. v. Gersten, 582 So. 2d 685 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…damages. Judgment vacated and cause remanded for a new hearing on damages consistent with this opinion. POLEN, MARK E. and GARRETT, EUGENE S., Associate Judges, concur. . We would also note that in Vibrant Video, Inc. v. Dixie Pointe Associates, 567 So. 2d 1003 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) this court held that a landlord’s future monetary losses must be reduced to present money value.…
-
N.E.P. Int'l, Inc. v. Falls, 629 So. 2d 1019 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)…educe future damages for breach of the lease to present value. Rent, taxes and charges constituting damages for future injury must be reduced to present value because, as the third district pointed out in Vibrant Video, Inc. v. Dixie Pointe Assocs., 567 So. 2d 1003, 1004 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), “the only recoverable element of the plaintiffs (lessor’s) claim to future monetary losses is their present value.” This error requires reversal. [*1020] The final judgment was flawed in one other respect. When a judgment i…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Williams v. Aeroland OIL Co., 155 Fla. 114 (Fla. 1944)
- Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Burdi, 427 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Kanter v. Safran, 99 So. 2d 706 (Fla. 1958)
- Fountas v. Ziegler, 305 So. 2d 864 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- CB Institutional Fund Viii v. Gemballa U.S.A., Inc., 566 So. 2d 896 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)