HENRY M. SCHMERER, AND ANN SCHMERER, APPELLANTS,
v.
HARRY HAMMER, AND BESSIE HAMMER, HIS WIFE, 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.
This case involves an appeal from a summary final judgment for the defendants in a suit for specific performance of an alleged oral lease renewal. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding the facts did not support enforcement of the oral agreement.
The court held that the oral agreement to renew the lease was not enforceable under the circumstances presented. The facts did not align with the precedent that would allow for enforcement of such oral agreements.
“The chancellor here correctly held that the Lemel decision was inapplicable to the instant situation because it appears without issue that the plaintiff used the security deposit for the last month's rent of the term provided by the written lease and showed no reliance upon the alleged promise other than the holding over after the term.”
This quote explains why the court found the prior precedent inapplicable and denied enforcement of the oral lease renewal.
Plaintiffs, as tenants, sought specific performance of an alleged oral renewal of a one-year lease. The written lease had expired, and the tenants rem…
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 Specific Performance cases and more on FLexlaw
The plaintiffs brought an action for specific performance of an alleged oral renewal of a lease for one year. A summary final judgment for the defendants was entered and plaintiffs appeal.
The appellants rely on S. Lemel, Inc. v. 27th Avenue Farmers Market, Inc., Fla.App.1961, 126 So.2d 167 which held that an oral agreement to execute a renewal lease would be enforced where the tenant remained in possession under the oral agreement, paid the stipulated monthly rent for several months of the renewal term, made substantial improvements upon the leased premises and purchased merchandise and equipment in reliance upon the agreement; and where the lessor continued to retain a rent security deposit.
The chancellor here correctly held that the Lemel decision was inapplicable to the instant situation because it appears without issue that the plaintiff used the security deposit for the last month’s rent of the term provided by the written lease and showed no reliance upon the alleged promise other than the holding over after the term.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- S. Lemel, Inc. v. 27TH Ave. Farmers Mkt., Inc., 126 So. 2d 167 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)