2501, LLC, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
PRICE BUSTER MATTRESS, LLC AND PRICE BUSTER MATTRESS FLORIDA, LLC, APPELLEES/CROSS-APPELLANTS.
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 landlord sued a commercial tenant for breach of lease in two consolidated actions. The trial court found the tenant breached the lease but that the landlord had retaken possession and failed to mitigate damages. The appellate court affirmed the factual findings but remanded because the two cases required separate judgments despite consolidation for trial.
The court affirmed the trial court's findings that the tenant breached the lease and that the landlord retook possession on June 6, 2014, as these determinations were supported by competent, substantial evidence. However, the court reversed and remanded because the two separately filed cases required separate judgments and determinations of prevailing party, even though they were consolidated for trial purposes.
[1] Consolidated cases do not lose their individual identities as distinct, separately filed causes of action for purposes of judgment.
[2] A trial court's findings of fact are supported by competent, substantial evidence when the record contains such evidence, even if the appellate court might have reached a…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“competent, substantial evidence supports the trial court's determinations that Tenant breached the lease but that Landlord retook possession of the premises on June 6, 2014”
Establishes the standard for appellate review and affirms the factual findings regarding breach and retaking of possession
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence2501, LLC (Landlord) filed two separate complaints against Price Buster Mattress, LLC (Tenant) alleging breach of a commercial lease. The first suit s…
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 Commercial Lease cases and more on FLexlaw
2501, LLC ("Landlord"), filed two separate complaints against Price Buster Mattress, LLC ("Tenant"), alleging breach of a commercial lease. The parties stipulated that in the first suit,1 Landlord sought to recover for Tenant's alleged breach of lease through the date of filing of the first complaint-August 5, 2014. In the second suit,2 Landlord sought to recover through the date of filing of the second complaint-November 4, 2015. The two suits were consolidated and tried together. The issues at trial revolved around which party breached the lease agreement and when Landlord retook possession of the premises. The trial court ultimately found that Tenant breached the lease, but that Landlord *729retook possession of the property on June 6, 2014, and thereafter failed to mitigate its damages.
Landlord appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in finding that it retook possession of the premises. Tenant cross-appeals, contending that the Landlord was, in fact, the breaching party and that the trial court erred in its determination of when Landlord retook possession. Tenant also argues that the trial court erred in not separating the two cases in the final judgment.
We affirm both appeals because competent, substantial evidence supports the trial court's determinations that Tenant breached the lease but that Landlord retook possession of the premises on June 6, 2014. However, we agree with Tenant that even though the cases were consolidated for trial, Tenant is entitled to a judgment separating the two cases for damages purposes, as well as a determination as to which party was the prevailing party in each case. See OneBeacon Ins. Co. v. Delta Fire Sprinklers, Inc., 898 So.2d 113, 116 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) ("[C]onsolidated cases do not lose their individual identities as distinct, separately filed causes of action."); cf. CDI Contractors, LLC. v. Allbrite Elec. Contractors, Inc., 836 So.2d 1031, 1033 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (remanding for trial court to enter separate judgments for damages, interest, attorney's fees, and costs on separate but consolidated cases; ordering trial court on remand to "apportion (if possible) the fees attributable" to the separate cases).
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.
COHEN, C.J., PALMER and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Sanders v. State, 836 So. 2d 1031 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)
- Onebeacon Ins. Co. v. DELTA Fire Sprinklers, Inc., 898 So. 2d 113 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)