FURCHGOTT'S, INC., A CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
ROBERT H. JACOBS, 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.
This case concerns whether a shopping center lease allows a landlord to cancel a lease with one tenant and re-lease the space to a competitor of another tenant, Furchgott's, Inc. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding no prohibition in the lease against such action.
No, the lease provisions do not prohibit the landlord from canceling another tenant's lease and re-leasing the space to a competing department store. The court found no clearly and positively expressed intention in the lease to grant Furchgott's such exclusivity.
“The specific question involved is whether the lease provisions permit the landlord to cancel another lease with a different tenant in the shopping center and re-lease the latter tenant's space to a new tenant for the operation of another department store which will compete with appellant's operation of a similar facility.”
This quote frames the central issue of the case.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFurchgott's, Inc. (appellant) leased space in a shopping center and believed its lease granted it exclusive rights to operate a department store. The …
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 Lease Construction cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant seeks review of an adverse declaratory decree construing its rights under a shopping center lease. The specific question involved is whether the lease provisions permit the landlord to cancel another lease with a different tenant in the shopping center and re-lease the latter tenant’s space to a new tenant for the operation of another department store which will compete with appellant’s operation of a similar facility.
In ruling that the landlord was not prohibited by the terms of its lease with appellant from doing so, the chancellor rejected appellant’s contention that the lease provisions gave it an exclusive on the operation of a department store in the center.
We approve the chancellor’s statement of the controlling law of this case found in his well reasoned opinion which states:
“The law of Florida is well settled that a restrictive covenant as to property retained by a lessor must be evidenced by a clearly and positively expressed intention. Norwood Shopping Center, Inc. v. M. K. R. Corporation (3 D.C.A.1961) 135 So.2d 448; Parkleigh House, Inc. v. *750Wahl (3 D.C.A.1957) 97 So.2d 714; Fountainebleau Hotel Corp. v. Kaplan (Fla.App.3d 1959) 108 So.2d 503.”
We have considered the record, briefs, and argument in this cause, and it does not appear that the chancellor committed reversible error in the entry of the decree appealed from; and the same is therefore
Affirmed.
WIGGINTON, Acting C. J., and JOHNSON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Int'l Expositions, Inc. v. City OF Miami Beach, 274 So. 2d 29 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)…holding that such a restrictive covenant preventing the lessor from leasing the remaining premises to plaintiff’s competitor could not be written into the lease by the courts. A similar holding is found in Furchgott’s Inc. v. Jacobs, Fla.App. 1967, 199 So. 2d 749. The contract with the City of Miami Beach clearly reveals an absence of circumstances upon which the appellant could support a claim for relief. Therefore, the court quite properly dismissed the complaint with prejudice. David’s Sandwich Shop, Inc…
Authorities Cited
- Fontainebleau Hotel Corp. v. Kaplan, 108 So. 2d 503 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)
- Norwood Shopping Ctr., Inc. v. MKR Corp., 135 So. 2d 448 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)
- The Parkleigh House, Inc. v. Faye Wahl, 97 So. 2d 714 (Fla. 3d DCA 1957)