BROWARD DRUG STORES, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
PERINI LAND & DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, AND PERINI-WESTWARD DEVELOPERS, INC., A CORPORATION, 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.
Broward Drug Stores appealed the dismissal of its amended complaint seeking declaratory relief regarding rights under a commercial lease. The court affirmed the dismissal, holding that declaratory relief was improper because the plaintiff had not alleged genuine doubt about the lease terms and had already exercised a clear contractual option to terminate.
The dismissal was proper. The plaintiff failed to allege the existence of any doubt about the lease provision under which it exercised its option to terminate, and by exercising the option, the plaintiff demonstrated it had no doubt about that provision. The remaining disputes—who breached first, damages, and rent—are ordinary legal issues not appropriate for declaratory relief without special circumstances showing equity jurisdiction.
“The terms of the lease seem to be clear and unambiguous, and the real dispute between the parties appears to be, as to who breached the lease, the option exercised by the Plaintiff and the amount of damages due, if any.”
Establishes that the lease terms themselves were not ambiguous, and the actual dispute concerned performance and damages, not interpretation.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBroward Drug Stores and Perini entities were parties to a commercial lease. The lease contained clear and unambiguous terms with explicit options avai…
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 Contract Terms cases and more on FLexlaw
Plaintiff appeals an order in chancery which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint seeking declaratory and other relief and dismissing the cause without prejudice to pursue any Tights that it might have at law.
The action arose from a lease dispute. Appeal was taken from the following order:
“This cause was presented on Defendants’ Motion to-Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. Plaintiff seeks a declaratory decree determining the rights of the parties herein, under a •certain lease, copy of which is attached to the original Complaint. Plaintiff, alleges that it is in doubt as to its rights under the lease, and that it should not be put in .peril by. being forced to terminate and move, off the premises in question, before appealing to a Court, to construe the rights of the parties as these rights may be controlled by the terms of said-lease.
“Attached to -the Complaint and made a part thereof is a letter from Plaintiff to Defendants,- wherein Plaintiff exercises an option to declare the lease terminated. The option provision in the lease is clear, providing that should Defendant violate the terms of the lease the Plaintiff shall have one of two options set forth therein. The terms of the lease seem to be clear and unambiguous, and the real dispute between the parties appears to be, as to who breached the lease, the option exercised by the Plaintiff and the amount of damages due, if any. No facts are alleged, stating what particular rights are in doubt, and, as a matter of fact, Plaintiff appeared to be in no doubt by exercising one of the clearly stated options. It would seem that the Plaintiff seeks legal advice from the Court as to the exercise of the option. The Court concludes that this action is not a proper one for declaratory relief. (See May vs. Holly [Holley], [Fla.], 59 So. 2d 636, Halpert vs. Oleksy [Fla.], 65 So.2d 762, and Barrett vs. Pickard [Fla.], 85 So.2d 630) It is thereupon
“ORDERED AND DECREED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint be and the same is hereby granted and this cause *88is dismissed without prejudice to Plaintiff to pursue any rights at Law that it might have.” (Emphasis added.)
The sole question on appeal is whether or not the chancellor erred in dismissing the amended complaint. We find no error and affirm. The plaintiff did not allege the existence of any doubt as to the provision of the lease under which it had exercised its option to declare the lease terminated and to the contrary plaintiff alleged that it had in fact declared the lease terminated pursuant to the option. The termination of the lease leaves the only real dispute between the parties to be who breached the lease first, the amount of damages due for the breach and the amount due for rent. These issues are, in the absence of allegations of special circumstance showing equity jurisdiction, ordinary issues to be resolved in an action at law. Barrett v. Pickard, Fla.1956, 85 So.2d 630.
Affirmed.
SMITH, C. J., and SHANNON and WHITE, TT., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Floyd v. The Guardian Life Ins. Co. OF Am., 415 So. 2d 103 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…d upon by appellee—Reddick v. Christie, 226 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969) (complaint on construction contract for sums owed to plaintiffs did not state a claim for declaratory relief); Broward Drug Stores, Inc. v. Perini Land & Development Company, 170 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964) (Lessee’s complaint showed no doubt existed as to lease provisions and no special circumstances requiring declaratory relief beyond available legal remedies); Barrett v. Pickard, 85 So. 2d 630 (Fla.1956) (provisions of the instrum…
-
Kelner v. Woodrew W. Woody and Anna Woody, 399 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…ements; to the contrary, they exercised their right to declare the lease terminated and demanded possession pursu [*38] ant to that provision. See Columbia Casualty Co. v. Zimmerman, supra; Broward Drug Stores, Inc. v. Perini Land & Development Co., 170 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964). Only after appellees refused to surrender possession did appellants become doubtful about their position — and doubts, uncertainty or insecurity as a basis for a declaratory decree must arise from the facts and circumstances crea…
Authorities Cited
- Halpert v. Oleksy, 65 So. 2d 762 (Fla. 1953)
- Barrett v. Pickard, 85 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 1956)