4-WAY, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
TOBY BRYAN, 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.
A landlord appealed a trial court judgment that released a tenant from lease obligations after the landlord retook possession of commercial premises. The court held that a landlord's actual use of the repossessed property, not the landlord's failure to notify the tenant or exclude the tenant from renovation decisions, determines whether the landlord has elected to release the tenant from liability.
The court held that a landlord's election of remedies is determined by the actual use of the repossessed property, not by the landlord's notice to the tenant or the tenant's participation in decision-making. A landlord is barred from future recovery only if the landlord resumes possession and utilizes the premises for purposes other than recovery of rental. Here, the landlord's renovations and repairs were consistent with reletting the property for the tenant's account, so the landlord was not barred from recovery.
[1] A landlord has three remedies for a tenant's breach of a lease agreement: retake possession for exclusive use, retake possession for the tenant's account, or take no acti…
[2] A landlord's actual use of repossessed property, not the failure to notify the tenant of contractual obligations or the tenant's exclusion from renovation decisions, defi…
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“a landlord has three remedies for breach of a lease agreement: (1) to retake possession of property for its exclusive use; (2) to retake possession for the account of the tenant, holding the tenant responsible for the difference between the stipulated rent to be paid and any amount the lessor is able to recover in good faith from his re-letting; and (3) to take no action and sue the tenant as each installment of rent matures or for all the rents due when the lease expires.”
Establishes the three available remedies for a landlord when a tenant breaches a lease agreement.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe landlord retook possession of commercial premises after the tenant breached the lease agreement. The landlord made renovations and repairs to the …
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.
CAWTHON, Senior Judge.
This is an appeal of a final judgment on an action for breach of a lease agreement in which the trial court ruled that the landlord retook possession of a commercial premises exclusively for his own purposes and thereby released the tenant from liability. Appellant landlord contends, among other things, that the court erred in (1) finding that the landlord retook possession exclusively for his own use and (2) finding that the landlord is barred from recovering rents accruing after repossession of a commercial premises unless the landlord has expressly notified his tenant of its contractual obligations.
We reverse the trial court’s order. The trial court correctly stated that a landlord has three remedies for breach of a lease agreement: (1) to retake possession of property for its exclusive use; (2) to retake possession for the account of the tenant, holding the tenant responsible for the difference between the stipulated rent to be paid and any amount the lessor is able to recover in good faith from his re-letting; and (3) to take no action and sue the tenant as each installment of rent matures or for all the rents due when the lease expires. Williams v. Aeroland Oil Company, 155 Fla. 114, 20 So. 2d 346 (1944). The trial court, however, erred in finding that the landlord retook possession exclusively for his own use based on the landlord’s failure to notify the tenant and the tenant’s exclusion from decision-making in the renovation and rental of the property.
In Kanter v. Safran, 68 So. 2d 553 (Fla.1953), the court established that it is the actual use of the repossessed property by a landlord which defines his recovery unless there is an agreement between the parties relieving the tenant of future liability. In Colonial Promenade v. Juhas, 541 So. 2d 1313 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989), our sister court likewise held that the nature of the landlord’s use of the property after the defaulting tenant leaves governs the availability of the landlord’s remedies. The court further held that a landlord is barred from future recovery only if the landlord has resumed possession of the premises and utilizes them for purposes other than the recovery of rental. Id. at 1315.
None of the renovations and repairs made by the landlord were inconsistent with the right of the landlord to relet the property for the tenant’s account. The un-rebutted evidence was that the landlord never occupied the premises at any time after the eviction and continually advertised the property for lease since the eviction. Accordingly, the trial court’s order is reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
ERVIN and WIGGINTON, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Holiday Furniture Factory Outlet Corp. v. State, 852 So. 2d 926 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)…ures, or sue for all the rents due when the lease expires. See, e.g., Wagner v. Rice, 97 So. 2d 267 (Fla.1957); Stenor, Inc. v. Lester, 58 So. 2d 673 (Fla.1951); Williams v. Aeroland Oil Co., 155 Fla. 114, 20 So. 2d 346 (1944); 4-Way, Inc. v. Bryan, 581 So. 2d 208 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Diehl v. Gibbs, 173 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965); Ft. Lauderdale Joint Venture Ltd. P’ship v. Sander, 613 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Blount v. Dino’s Fontana Di Trevi, Inc., 583 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Gould v. Vit…
-
Fort Lauderdale Joint Venture Ltd. P'ship v. Sander, 613 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)…rent to be paid and any amount the lessor is able to recover in good faith from his re-letting; and (3) to take no action and sue the tenant as each installment of rent matures or for all the rents due when the lease expires. 4-Way, Inc. v. Bryan, 581 So. 2d 208, 209 (Fla. 1st DCA), dismissed, 591 So. 2d 180 (Fla.1991). Here, the trial court found that JVJ had retaken the property for its exclusive use because of the nature of the license agreements and its relationship to the licensee, an existing tenant i…
-
Griffin Indus., LLC v. Dixie Southland Corp., 162 So. 3d 1062 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)…or sue for all the rents due when the lease expires.” Id. (citing Wagner v. Rice, 97 So. 2d 267 (Fla.1957); Stenor, Inc. v. Lester, 58 So. 2d 673 (Fla.1951); Williams v. Aeroland Oil Co., 155 Fla. 114, 20 So. 2d 346 (Fla.1944); 4-Way, Inc. v. Bryan, 581 So. 2d 208 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Diehl v. Gibbs, 173 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965); Ft. Lauderdale Joint Venture Ltd. P’ship v. Sander, 613 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Blount v. Dino’s Fontana Di Trevi, Inc., 583 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Gould v. Vit…
Previewing 3 of 5 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)
- Kanter et ux. v. Safran, 68 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 1953)
- Colonial Promenade v. Juhas, 541 So. 2d 1313 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)