BRUNSWICK CORP., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
BERLO VENDING COMPANY, A DELAWARE 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.
Brunswick Corporation, as lessee of Congress Bowl premises, attempted to remove Berlo Vending Company from occupancy of a subleased portion. The court affirmed the dismissal of Brunswick's petition, holding that Berlo retained its leasehold interest despite the termination of the head lease between the owner and Brunswick's predecessor.
Berlo retained its leasehold interest and was not a tenant at will. The surrender of the head lease by Congress Lanes did not defeat the estate of the subtenant Berlo, and the agreement between the owner and Congress Lanes was effective as a surrender of the lease without defeating Berlo's rights.
“A surrender by a lessee, after a sub-lease, will not defeat the estate of a sub-lessee.”
This principle establishes the controlling law that Berlo's leasehold interest survives the termination of the head lease.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe owner leased Congress Bowl to Congress Lanes in 1961. Congress Lanes then subleased a portion to Berlo Vending Company for five years with renewal…
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 Removal Petition cases and more on FLexlaw
Brunswick Corporation, as lessee of certain premises, petitioned the lower court to remove Berlo Vending Company from occupancy of a portion of the leased premises. Brunswick appeals from an order dismissing the petition.
The real estate upon which the premises called Congress Bowl is located is owned by Henry G. Berke, Morris Posner and Victor Posner, as trustees. On March 7, 1961, the owner leased the premises to Congress Lanes, Inc. On June 27, 1961, Congress Lanes leased a portion of the premises to Berio Vending Company to be used as a snack bar and cocktail lounge. Berio’s lease is for a period of five years with two options to extend for additional periods of five years.
On July 22, 1964, the owner and Congress Lanes entered into an agreement under which the owner agreed to pay the sum of $3,000.00 to Congress Lanes for possession of the Congress Bowl premises. The agreement provided that when all its terms and conditions shall have been complied with the lease existing between the parties shall be deemed cancelled. Following the surrender of the premises by Congress Lanes, Berio was instructed to make its payments, as set forth in its lease with Congress Lanes, to the owner
Subsequently, the owner entered into a lease, dated February 27, 1965, with Brunswick. Prior to the date of the lease Brunswick had knowledge of Berio’s occupancy and its lease. After Brunswick took possession, Berio made its payment to it.
On May 4, 1965, Brunswick notified Berlo that it was a tenant at will and demanded that it remove itself from the premises by May 31, 1965. The demand was refused and Brunswick filed its petition for removal.
A surrender by a lessee, after a sub-lease, will not defeat the estate of a sub-lessee.1
Brunswick’s contention that Berio is a tenant at will is without merit. The interests of Berio were not defeated by the agreement entered into beween the owner and the lessee, Congress Lanes. Brunswick’s contention that the agreement between the owner and Congress Lanes was not effective as a surrender of the lease is also without merit.
Therefore, the order appealed is affirmed. '
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Emory C. Bobo v. Vanguard Bank & Tr. Co., Inc., 512 So. 2d 246 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)…sure of a mortgage on the master lease would not foreclose Bobo’s sublease. A surrender by a lessee of its interest in a leasehold, after a sublease has been entered, does not defeat the estate of the sublessee. Brunswick Corp. v. Berlo Vending Co., 196 So. 2d 497 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967). While the sublease might rise and fall with the master lease, the master lease itself does not fall in this case; only a mortgage on that master lease is foreclosed. The master lease itself will continue to exist, but with a new…
-
Thal v. S.G.D. Corp., 625 So. 2d 852 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)…voluntary surrender of the master lease, rather than a cancellation, thereby invoking the principle of law that the voluntary surrender of a master lease does not extinguish a sublease. Bobo, 512 So. 2d at 247; Brunswick Corp. v. Berlo Vending Co., 196 So. 2d 497, 498 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967). We disagree. The lessors’ complaint sought both eviction (Count I) and cancellation (Count III) of the master lease, and had been filed based upon a default on the master lease. The fact that this suit was settled, rather th…
Authorities Cited
- Goldberg v. Tri-States Theatre Corp., 126 F.2d 26 (8th Cir. 1942)