ALACHUA COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY
v.
GRAHAM
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 lease provision requiring completion of recertification procedures as a condition of tenancy must be enforced according to its clear and unambiguous terms, and a court cannot rewrite the contract to avoid forfeiture when a tenant has failed to comply despite having notice and opportunity to do so.
[1] Clear and unambiguous language in a lease agreement must be given its plain and ordinary meaning, and courts may not rewrite contract terms to make them more favorable to…
[2] Although forfeitures are disfavored in law, a court must enforce a forfeiture clause when the contract language is unambiguous and the parties have clearly agreed to it.
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“A fundamental principle of contract construction is that clear, unambiguous language must be given its plain and ordinary meaning.”
Establishes the governing standard for interpreting the lease agreement's recertification requirement.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGraham leased housing from ACHA beginning in December 2017 and complied with annual recertification requirements through 2021. In July 2022, Graham wa…
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.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
_____________________________
No. 1D2024-1385 _____________________________
ALACHUA COUNTY HOUSING
AUTHORITY,
Appellant,
v.
ERICA GRAHAM,
Appellee. _____________________________
On appeal from the County Court for Alachua County. Meshon T. Rawls, Judge.
December 23, 2025
WINOKUR, J.
Alachua County Housing Authority (ACHA) appeals a final order dismissing its complaint for eviction. In its complaint, the ACHA sought to evict Erica Graham after Graham failed to comply with the lease’s recertification requirement. The county court dismissed ACHA’s complaint. We reverse.
In December 2017, ACHA and Graham entered into a residential lease agreement, for a term of one year with an option to renew. To renew, Graham and all adults living in the home were required to attend a recertification appointment and submit a redetermination packet with information to determine eligibility and rent. Under the lease, “failure to supply such information when requested is a serious violation of the terms of the lease and ACHA must terminate the lease.”
Graham was released from jail on December 5 and contacted ACHA about the redetermination packet the following day. Graham requested ACHA re-mail the three previous letters so she could accurately complete the redetermination packet. Graham claims she never received these three letters. On December 16, as a result of Graham’s failure to complete the redetermination packet and recertification appointment, ACHA filed an action to evict Graham. The county court found that eviction would be inequitable and unconscionable and dismissed ACHA’s complaint. ACHA appealed.
A fundamental principle of contract construction is that clear, unambiguous language must be given its plain and ordinary meaning. Columbia Bank v. Columbia Developers, LLC, 127 So. 3d
The lease agreement between Graham and
ACHA
unambiguously states that “failure to supply such [redetermination] information when requested is a serious violation of the terms of the lease and ACHA must terminate the lease.” Although Graham was incarcerated, she had submitted the redetermination packet in years prior, was aware the packet was due while she was incarcerated, and had given her son power of attorney so he could complete the packet in her absence. Covert failed to complete the packet, and when Graham was released, she also failed to complete the redetermination packet and recertification appointment. While the third letter included conflicting dates as to whether the lease would terminate on December 1 or 12, by the 16th, Graham had still not completed her redetermination packet or recertification appointment.
When the trial court refused to honor the terms of the lease to which Graham and ACHA had agreed, it essentially rewrote the terms of the contract to favor Graham. See Med. Inv. Corp. v. Mike Rollison Fence, LLC, 331 So. 3d 242, 247 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021) (“‘A party is bound by, and a court is powerless to rewrite, the clear and unambiguous terms of a voluntary contract. . . . It is not the role of the courts to make an otherwise valid contract more reasonable from the standpoint of one contracting party.’” (citation omitted)).
OSTERHAUS, C.J., and LONG, J., concur.
_____________________________
Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. _____________________________
Rhonda E. Stringer of Saxon Gilmore & Carraway P.A., Tampa, for Appellant.
Kevin Skyler Rabin of Three Rivers Legal Services, Inc., Gainesville, for Appellee.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Nelson v. Clive Hansard, 143 Fla. 898 (Fla. 1940)
- Ferreira v. Home Depot/Sedgwick CMS, 12 So. 3d 866 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)
- Stoltz v. Truitt, 940 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)