FRANK DUCHAINE AND SIMONE DUCHAINE, APPELLANTS,
v.
GROSCO REALTY, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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.
A cause of action requires both a wrongful act and resulting loss or damage.
Lessee sued lessor for alleged breaches of lease covenants, including elimination of a door and violation of an exclusive right. The trial court grant…
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 Breach Of Lease Covenants cases and more on FLexlaw
The trial court entered a summary final judgment in behalf of the defendant in a suit at law for damages for alleged breaches of the terms of a store lease in a shopping center. The plaintiffs (lessees) alleged that the defendant lessor eliminated a door which would lead into an adjacent store and that this violated the covenant of quiet enjoyment. They also alleged that lessor had granted to another tenant in the shopping center the right to sell beer to be consumed off the premises, and that this violated an exclusive right granted plaintiffs in a covenant in their lease.
On motion for summary judgment it was shown that, assuming (but not deciding) that, the acts complained of did in fact and law constitute breaches of covenants of the lease, the plaintiffs could present no evidence to establish that they had sustained any loss or damage because of such breaches. There is no genuine issue on the material fact of absence of any provable damages proximately resulting from the alleged breaches.
For there to be a cause of action there must be a concurrence of the wrongful act and loss resulting therefrom. 1 Am. Jur., Actions, Sec. 30, p. 423. As a necessary corollary of this rule, “it is a maxim of law that wrong without damage, or ‘injuria abseque damno’, does not constitute a good cause of action as the law furnishes a remedy only for such wrongful acts as result in injury.” 1 Am.Jur., Actions, Sec. 31, p. 424. See also 1 GJ.S. Actions § IS c, p. 1011.
We have not overlooked the legal concept that in a case of an act which itself is a violation of a legal right, and if continued may become, by lapse of time, a foundation of an adverse right in the wrongdoer, then the courts will entertain an action to redress the breach and award at least nominal damages. See 1 C.J.S. Actions § IS c, 2nd paragraph, pp. 1011-1012, and cases there cited. This case at bar does not come with*680in the class of cases which would require application of that principle.
The judgment of the trial court is
Affirmed.
KANNER, Acting C. J., and SHANNON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Schein v. Chasen, 313 So. 2d 739 (Fla. 1975)…2 So. 2d 66 (Fla.App.3, 1968); Conlee Construction Co. v. Cay Construction Co., 221 So. 2d 792 (Fla.App.4, 1969). See also, Stone et al. v. Holly Hill Fruit Products, Inc. et al., 56 F. 2d 553 (C.C.A.5, 1932); Duchaine et al. v. Grosco Realty, Inc., 121 So. 2d 679 (Fla.App.2, 1960). We note with interest that the Securities and Exchange Commission filed a civil complaint for injunction alleging violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 against Lum’s, Inc., Chasen, Lehman Bros.,…
-
Schein v. Chasen, 519 F.2d 453 (2d Cir. 1975)…. 2d 66 (Fla.App.3, 1968); Conlee Construction Co. v. Cay Construction Co., 221 So. 2d 792 (Fla.App.4, 1969). See also, Stone, et al. v. Holly Hill Fruit Products, Inc., et al., 56 F. 2d 553 (5 C.C.A., 1932), Duchaine, et al. v. Grosco Realty, Inc., 121 So. 2d 679 (Fla.App.2, 1960). We note with interest that the Securities and Exchange Commission filed a civil complaint for injunction alleging violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b — 5 against Lum’s, Inc., Chasen, Lehman Bros…
-
Ross v. Stanley, 346 F.2d 645 (5th Cir. 1965)….Jur., Waters, § 444; Baker v. Fort Worth, 1948, 146 Tex. 600, 210 S.W. 2d 564, 5 A.L.R.2d 297; Henderson v. Talbott, 1954, 175 Kan. 615, 266 P. 2d 273; annotation in 5 A.L.R.2d pp. 302 et seq.” See also Duchaine v. Grosco Realty Co., Fla.App.1960, 121 So. 2d 679. With deference, I submit that neither claim is barred by the statue of limitations. I submit, further, that neither claim should be dismissed as premature, but rather that a stay should be directed pending the conclusion of the Federal Power Commi…