MARC MAZO, APPELLANT,
v.
GROVE PARTNERS, BY AND THROUGH ITS GENERAL PARTNERS, FRED RAZOOK, DAVID BRETT AND CLARENCE MCKEE; AND B/W GENERAL CONTRACTORS, INC., 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.
A lessee seeking possession based solely on the lessors' acceleration of rent is not entitled to possession where no rents have actually been collected through acceleration.
A lessee is not entitled to immediate possession of leased property merely because the lessors have sought acceleration of rent, absent actual collection of rents through acceleration.
[1] A lessee's right to remain in possession following acceleration of rent is conditioned upon actual collection of rents through acceleration, not merely upon the lessor's…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“to the extent rents had been collected in such fashion [by acceleration], lessee shall be entitled to remain in possession to the exhaustion of the period covered by the rental so collected”
The lease provision explicitly conditioning the lessee's possession rights on actual collection of rents through acceleration.
Mazo, a commercial lessee, sought immediate possession of the leased property after the lessors sought acceleration of rent in an action against him.…
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 Right Of Possession cases and more on FLexlaw
LEHAN, Judge.
We affirm the trial court’s denial of appellant’s motion for immediate possession of property.
Appellant, a lessee of commercial property, contends that he is entitled to possession of the leased property solely because appellees, the lessors, have sought acceleration of the rent in their action against appellant. However, the mere fact that the lessors have sought acceleration does not entitle appellant to possession of the premises. Although appellant correctly contends that once a lessor accelerates the rent due, he cannot also demand possession of the premises, Jimmy Hall’s Momingside, Inc. v. Blackburn & Peck Enterprises, Inc., 235 So. 2d 344 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970), appellant overlooks the fact that appellees are merely seeking acceleration and that no rents have been collected by acceleration. Moreover, the lease between the parties specifically states what is implicit in Jimmy Hall’s, that is, “to the extent rents had been collected in such fashion [by acceleration], lessee shall be entitled to remain in possession to the exhaustion of the period covered by the rental so collected....” Since no rents have been collected by acceleration, the trial court correctly determined that appellant is not entitled to possession of the premises.
As to the parties’ other rights and obligations, see Jimmy Hall’s. See also Grove Restaurant & Bar, Inc. v. Razook, 571 So. 2d 596 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) and cases cited therein.
Affirmed.
SCHOONOVER, C.J., and SCHEB, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Jimmy Hall's Morningside, Inc. v. Blackburn & Peck Enters., Inc., 235 So. 2d 344 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970)
- The Grove Rest. & BAR, Inc. v. Razook, 571 So. 2d 596 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)