BISCAYNE PLAZA UNIT THREE CORP., APPELLANT,
v.
G. R. KINNEY CO., MIAMI, INC., 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.
This case involves a lessee suing their lessor to enjoin the operation of a refreshment stand in a shopping plaza. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that the stand interfered with the lessee's use of their leased property.
Yes, the court held that the operation of the refreshment stand interfered with the lessee's full use of the leased property, supporting the lower court's injunction.
“the erection and operation of the refreshment stand deprived the plaintiff of the full use of the property leased to it.”
This quote establishes the court's finding that the lessor's actions interfered with the lessee's property rights.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellee (plaintiff) leased a store unit in a shopping plaza owned by the appellant (defendant). The appellant installed a refreshment stand with …
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 Lease Interpretation cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant was defendant in an action brought by the appellee to enjoin the operation by appellant of a refreshment stand. The plaintiff-appellee was the lessee of a store unit in a shopping plaza owned and operated by the appellant-defendant. The complaint sought to enjoin the operation of a refreshment stand or “snack bar”, containing automatic dispensing machines, installed by the lessor in front of plaintiff’s shoe store and separated from the store by a sidewalk. At the conclusion of the trial a final decree in favor of plaintiff was entered and this appeal followed.
The burden of appellant’s argument is that the evidence was not sufficient to support the final decree because 1) the monetary damage was not proved, 2) the damages were trivial and not irreparable, and 3) the structure did not violate any of the terms of the lease agreement between the parties. A review of the record in the light of the briefs and argument reveals substantial evidence for the chancellor’s conclusion that the erection and operation of the refreshment stand deprived the plaintiff of the full use of the property leased to it.
Affirmed.
CARROLL, CHAS., C. J., and HORTON and PEARSON, JJ., concur.