CAPTAIN EDWIN P. LEMAY, APPELLANT,
v.
THOMAS M. WOHL ET AL., D/B/A THE PARKLEIGH HOUSE, 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 concerns whether a tenant can present defenses like advance payments or credits in a landlord's distress for rent action. The appellate court held that such defenses are permissible, reversing the trial court's exclusion of this evidence.
Yes, the trial court erred in excluding evidence and testimony supporting the tenant's defenses. Such defenses are cognizable in an action for distress for rent.
“Did the trial court err in ruling that issues of advance payment, pre-payments, credits or set-offs by tenant are not cognizable in an action for distress for rent.”
This quote states the central legal question addressed by the appellate court.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiffs sued their tenant for $2,400 in unpaid rent. The tenant admitted owing $400, which he tendered, but denied the full amount. The trial court…
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 Recoupment Defense cases and more on FLexlaw
Plaintiffs brought action for distress alleging defendant-tenant was in arrears in the sum of $2,400.00 for rent payments for the period from August 1, 1965 to and including January 1, 1966. In his answer defendant denied being indebted in the sum of $2,400.00 but alleged that he was in arrears for rent in the sum of only $400.00 which sum was tendered to the plaintiffs and into the registry of the court. The tender was refused and the case went to trial without a jury. Judgment resulted for the plaintiffs in the full amount claimed.
Defendant’s appeal presents the question : Did the trial court err in ruling that issues of advance payment, pre-payments, credits or set-offs by tenant are not cognizable in an action for distress for rent.
We hold that it was reversible error to exclude testimony and evidence in support of the issues raised by defendant’s answer. Section 83.16 Fla.Stat., F.S.A. provides that defendant may set off in defense any claim or demand which might be pleaded by way of set-off or recoupment in any ordinary action at law, and with like effect.
Reversed and remanded for a new trial.