BOLD MLP, LLC, A FLORIDA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
ROBERT SMITH AND JASON WILKINS, 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.
Bold MLP purchased Pensacola property subject to a lease and sought to terminate it after disputes with tenants. The trial court entered a declaratory judgment finding the lease enforceable, and Bold appealed arguing the lease was silent on renewal period rent, making it unenforceable.
The lease was enforceable. The agreement explicitly addressed renewal period rent through the handwritten modification stating annual increases of $75, which was consistent with the stated rates for years two and three. Therefore, the agreement was not silent on renewal rent, and Bold's argument that there was no meeting of the minds fails.
[1] A contract's interpretation is a legal issue reviewed de novo.
[2] A lease agreement's renewal terms are enforceable when they provide a clear method for determining rent increases.
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“The interpretation of a contract is a legal issue that we review de novo”
Establishes the standard of review applied to the trial court's lease interpretation.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBold MLP acquired property subject to a three-year lease with specified monthly rent of $800 (year 1), $875 (year 2), and $950 (year 3). The lease con…
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 Meeting Of The Minds cases and more on FLexlaw
Bold MLP, LLC (Bold), bought some Pensacola property subject to a lease. Not long after Bold received its first rent payment as the new owner, the relationship between Bold and the tenants soured. Not long after that, Bold sought to terminate the lease. Litigation quickly followed, and the circuit court entered a declaratory judgment interpreting the lease and finding it enforceable. Bold appealed.
Among Bold’s several arguments on appeal is that the trial court misinterpreted the lease agreement’s rent provision. The agreement explicitly states that the monthly rent will be $800 for the first year, $875 for the second, and $950 for the third. The agreement contemplated a three-year renewal option, which the tenants exercised. Without explanation, the trial court declared that “[t]he lease amount for the renewal period under the lease shall be $950 per month.”
Bold argues that the agreement provides “no answer” as to the rent due in subsequent years. He then argues that “Florida law is clear that where the lease is silent on the issue-of rent in the renewal, then there is not a binding agreement and meeting of the minds.” Accordingly, he insists the trial court should have found a “deficiency” in the agreement that precluded its enforcement.
The interpretation of a contract is a legal issue that we review de novo, Imag*1262 ine Ins. Co. v. State ex rel. Dep’t. of Fin. Servs., 999 So.2d 693, 696 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). Contrary to Bold’s argument, the agreement did address the monthly rent for the renewal period. The agreement said the rent would be $800 for the first year and that “[e]ach subsequent year rent will increase 5%.” The “5%” was scratched through (and initialed) and replaced with a handwritten:' “$75 2nd yr. $875 3rd yr. $950.” Therefore, the agreement calls for a $75 increase each year, which is consistent with its explicitly stating rates of $875 and $950 for years two and three, respectively. Notwithstanding the trial court’s declaration that rent will stay at $950, the agreement requires monthly rates of $1025, $1100, and $1175 for years four through six.
Bold’s argument on appeal was not that the trial court settled on the wrong rental rate; it was that there was no rental rate to be found, meaning the agreement could not be enforced. We reject Bold’s argument on this point, along with its remaining appellate arguments.
AFFIRMED.
ROBERTS, C.J., OSTERHAUS and WINSOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The City OF Pensacola v. Seville Harbour, Inc., 219 So. 3d 984 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)…ether the agreement between Seville'Harbour and Merrill Land is a pro tanto assignment of the Marina Lease (as the City contends) or a sublease (as Appel-lees contend). 'This is an issue of law, which we . review de novo. See BOLD MLP, LLC v. Smith, 201 So. 3d 1261, 1261 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016). It is well-established that the nature of a real estate transaction is determined by-its legal effect, not its . form or title. C.N.H.F., Inc. v. Eagle Crest Dev. Co., 99 Fla. 1238, 128 So. 844, 846 (1930) (“[T]he form of…
-
Azalea Trace, Inc. v. Matos, 249 So. 3d 699 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)
-
Arena Football League & Arena Football One, LLC v. Bryon Bishop, 220 So. 3d 1243 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)…ntract shows he was an AFL employee; the AFL contends just the opposite.2 The judge of compensation claims sided with Bishop, and the AFL appeals. Because the decision below turned on issues of law, our review is de novo. See BOLD MLP, LLC v. Smith, 201 So. 3d 1261, 1261 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016); see also Bend v. Shamrock Servs., 59 So. 3d 153, 156 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (noting that JCCs “may be required to interpret contracts” to determine coverage). The Contract says that “[t]he League hires the Player as a skille…
Authorities Cited
- Imagine Ins. Co., Ltd. v. State of Fla. ex rel. the Dep't OF Fin. Servs. of the State of Fla., 999 So. 2d 693 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)