MARIA MARQUEZ-GONZALEZ, APPELLANT,
v.
EMILIO PERERA, 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.
The court held that a tenant is entitled to rescission of a lease when a portion of the premises consists of an illegal structure built without permits, and this fact was not disclosed and could not be discovered by the tenant.
A tenant leased commercial space and agreed to take it 'as is,' undertaking necessary refurbishing. After leasing, the tenant discovered a portion of …
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 Rescission Of Lease cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Maria Marquez-Gonzalez appeals an adverse final judgment after bench trial. We reverse.
Plaintiff/ appellant Marquez-Gonzalez leased commercial space from defendant/appellee Emilio Perera for use as a small supermarket and restaurant. The premises were dilapidated. She agreed to lease the property “as is” and undertake necessary refurbishing.
After entry into the lease, tenant learned that a portion of the business premises consisted of an illegal structure which had been built without the required permits. The landlord did not rectify the illegal permit situation, and the tenant ultimately sued for rescission of the lease. After bench trial, the court entered judgment for the landlord on the theory that the tenant had leased the premises “as is.” The tenant has appealed.
In our view, rescission of the lease should have been granted. The tenant had inspected the premises and agreed to take them “as is.” The tenant’s testimony, however, is undisputed that there had been no disclosure that a portion of the business premises had been built without permits and consequently was illegal. There is no way that the tenant could have discovered this fact by visual inspection of the premises, and nothing placed her on any inquiry notice that a portion of the structure had been built without permits. The illegal structure problem was a matter which the landlord was obliged to correct, not the tenant. Under the circumstances, the tenant was entitled to rescind the lease. See 49 Am.Jur.2d Landlord and Tenant §§ 843, 869-70 (1995).
Accordingly, the final judgment is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to enter a judgment in favor of the tenant on the claim for rescission of the lease, and such other relief as the trial court may deem proper. Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Griffin Indus., LLC v. Dixie Southland Corp., 162 So. 3d 1062 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)…suant to a clause in the addendum to the Lease. In its cross-appeal, Dixie seeks the rent plus sales and property taxes and insurance not paid by the new tenant for the remaining term of the Lease. II. Griffin relies on Marquez-Gonzalez v. Perera, 673 So. 2d 502 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996), to justify its termination' of the Lease based on' Dixie’s refusal to correct an illegal condition on the Property. In Marquez-Gonzalez, the tenant leased dilapidated commercial space on an “as is” basis with an agreement to unde…