ROSS PALAZZOLO D/B/A SAFETY HARBOR CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC, APPELLANT,
v.
JACK L. FESSLER, ELAINE A. FESSLER, AND PICK KWIK HOLDINGS, INC., F/K/A JFI CORPORATION, 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.
The court held that ambiguities in the commercial lease regarding rent obligations create genuine issues of material fact, precluding summary judgment on the eviction action.
A tenant appealed a partial summary judgment in an eviction action. The lease documents were unclear regarding the start of the rental period and 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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Eviction Action cases and more on FLexlaw
BLUE, Judge.
Ross Palazzolo, d/b/a Safety Harbor Chiropractic Clinic (tenant), appeals the partial summary judgment entered in favor of the Fesslers (landlords) in an eviction action. We have jurisdiction to review the portion of the order that granted the summary judgment as to count one of the complaint pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(ii). As to that ruling, we reverse because there are disputed issues of material fact regarding the tenant’s rent obligation.
The order on appeal also ruled on the landlords’ motion for summary judgment on the tenant’s second counterclaim. Although this opinion may affect that nonfinal order, this court does not have jurisdiction to review that portion of the order on appeal.
It is not necessary to present a complete recitation of the facts involved in this commercial lease dispute. In order to determine the tenant’s rent obligations, it was necessary to examine the lease docu-merits. These documents are unclear regarding when the rental period actually began and when specified rent increases were due. Ambiguities in a contract create genuine issues of material fact as to the correct interpretation of the contract, and so preclude summary judgment. See Griffin Builders Supply, Inc. v. Jones, 384 So. 2d 265, 266 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980). “When the wording of an agreement is ambiguous and parties suggest different interpretations, the issue of proper interpretation becomes one of fact precluding grant of summary judgment.” 384 So. 2d at 266.
The lease documents were ambiguous and thus created genuine issues of material fact. Accordingly, the summary judgment as to count one is reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded.
SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Metromedia Steakhouses Co., L.P., Ltd. v. USAA Income Props., 714 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)…th USAA. We reverse. The parties’ differing interpretations of the termination provisions of the lease reveal that the lease is ambiguous and that, therefore, resolution of this case by summary judgment was not appropriate. See Palazzolo v. Fessler, 680 So. 2d 607 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). Reversed and remanded for further proceedings. THREADGILL, A.C.J., and CASANUEVA, J., concur.…
-
Birwelco-Montenay, Inc. v. Infilco Degremont, Inc., 827 So. 2d 255 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)…y judgment is inappropriate where the contract at issue is susceptible of two interpretations. Dade County School Bd. v. Radio Station WQBA, 731 So. 2d 638 (Fla.1999); Miller v. [*257] Kase, 789 So. 2d 1095 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Palazzolo v. Fessler, 680 So. 2d 607 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Hancock v. Brumer, Cohen, Logan, Kandell & Kaufman, 580 So. 2d 782 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Langner v. Charles A. Binger, Inc., 503 So. 2d 1362 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). Here, each side argues that the contract is clear and unambiguous, and…
-
Entourage Custom Jets, LLC v. Air One MRO, LLC (S.D. Fla. 2020)…st. Ct. App. 2002) (“Where each side argues that the contract is clear and unambiguous, but ascribes a different meaning to the ‘unambiguous’ language, the contract is rendered ambiguous and summary judgment is improper.”); Palazzolo v. Fessler, 680 So. 2d 607, 608 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996) (“Where the wording of an agreement is ambiguous and the parties suggest different interpretations, the issue of proper interpretation becomes one of fact precluding grant of summary judgment.”). 2.…
Authorities Cited
- Griffin Builders Supply, Inc. v. Jones, 384 So. 2d 265 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)