JOSEPH WINSTON, APPELLANT,
v.
J. D. GRAMM, INC., A FLORIDA 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.
A tenant sought to enjoin eviction by a new landlord who purchased property subject to a lease executed by only one spouse of the original owners. The court affirmed the injunction, holding that the lease was valid where the non-signing spouse consented and the new owner had notice of the tenancy.
The court held that the Richart v. Roper precedent, which invalidated leases executed by one spouse without the other's consent, does not apply where the non-signing spouse has consented to the agreement and the purchaser had notice of the existing tenancy. The facts supported the trial court's exercise of authority to enjoin the eviction.
[1] A lease of property held by the entireties is invalid if only one spouse executes it without the other's joint consent.
[2] A purchaser of property takes it subject to the rights of a tenant in possession, especially when the purchaser has knowledge of the tenancy.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“because of the unity of interest of husband and wife in an estate by the entireties in real property neither can sell, lease or contract for the disposition of it without the joint consent of the other to do so”
Statement of the rule from Richart v. Roper regarding lease validity in estates by the entireties
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 1968, J.D. Gramm, Inc. (tenant) entered into a business lease with Anthony Pizzo for property owned by Anthony and Rose Pizzo as tenants by the ent…
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 Estate By The Entireties cases and more on FLexlaw
The defendant-appellant, Joseph Winston, is the landlord of the appellee J. D. Gramm, Inc. In 1968, the appellee-tenant received a business-property lease for a term of more than one year from Anthony Pizzo. The appellee entered into possession and has been in possession continuously since that time. The real property involved was owned by Anthony Pizzo and Rose Pizzo, his wife, as an estate by the entireties. The appellant, Joseph Winston, purchased the property in 1971 from Anthony and Rose Pizzo. He sought the removal of the appellee-tenant upon the ground that the lease given by Anthony Pizzo was invalid because Rose Pizzo did not join in its execution. The tenant brought an action in the circuit court seeking to enjoin the landlord from prosecuting an eviction action. After trial of the case in the circuit court, the trial judge found for the tenant and made the following findings of fact:
“1. That each and all of the allegations set forth in Plaintiff’s Complaint are true.
“2. That on or about the 7th day of October, 1968, Anthony Pizzo, a predecessor in title to the Defendant, JOSEPH WINSTON, entered into a written lease with the Plaintiff for the premises at 8901 Bird Road, Miami, Florida.
“3. That said Anthony Pizzo had the authority to negotiate and enter into said lease for and in behalf of himself and his wife, the fee owners of the property.
“4. That the Plaintiff performed in conformance with the lease and that although said lease was only witnessed by one witness, the principals to said lease accepted the benefit of the lease and recognized the validity of same.
“5. That the Plaintiff exercised its option to renew its lease on the subject premises.
“6. That JOSEPH WINSTON purchased the subject property with full knowledge of the occupancy and tenancy thereof of the Plaintiff.
“7. That a sign used by Plaintiff in its advertising of the premises was placed thereon with the approval and knowledge of the lessor and that the removal thereof by the Defendant, JOSEPH WINSTON, was an improper and unlawful act.
“8. That any defenses by the Defendant with regards to the Plaintiff’s position in this cause are unproven.”
On this appeal, the appellant-landlord urges that the lease is clearly invalid under the holding in Richart v. Roper, 156 Fla. 822, 25 So.2d 80 (1946). In the Richart case, the Supreme Court of Florida affirmed a judgment of a trial court holding invalid a lease of property held in the estate by the entireties in which the wife did not join. The court held that because of the unity of interest of husband and wife in an estate by the entireties in real property neither can sell, lease or contract for the disposition of it without the joint consent of the other to do so.
We think that the Richart case does not stand as a bar to a situation where the *61wife has consented to the agreement as the court here found she had, and the purchaser had a duty to recognize that a tenant was indeed in possession. Therefore, we hold that the facts found by the trial court constituted a sufficient basis for the court to exercise its authority to enjoin the eviction of the appellee. See Denco, Inc. v. Belk, Fla.1957, 97 So.2d 261; Gill v. Livingston, 158 Fla. 577, 29 So.2d 631 (1947); Mercer v. Miller, 157 Fla. 78, 24 So.2d 893 (1946); DuPuis v. 79th Street Hotel, Inc., Fla.App.1970, 231 So.2d 532.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sheehan v. Hubbard, 378 So. 2d 1238 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)…ion of it without the joint consent and agreement of the other to do so. Id. at 81. Richart does not bar relief in a situation where the wife has expressed her consent to a lease of entireties property signed only by her husband. Winston v. Gramm, 277 So. 2d 59 (Fla.3d DCA 1973). In the case sub judice, Mrs. Sheehan joined with her husband in bringing this suit in order to enforce the terms of the lease agreement, not to repudiate it as in Richart. We hold that Mrs. Sheehan ratified her husband’s execution…
-
Winston v. J. D. Gramm, Inc., 283 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 1973)…Certiorari denied. 277 So. 2d 59. ROBERTS, Acting C. J. and ERVIN, ADKINS, BOYD and McCAIN, JJ., concur.…
-
Davis v. FAT Man's Bar-B-Que OF Tallahassee, Inc., 289 So. 2d 29 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973)…re that her signature on the satisfaction was essential to the alienation of her interests therein, Richart v. Roper, supra. Though not cited by either of the parties in their briefs, we have considered Winston v. J. D. Gramm, Inc., (Fla.App. 1973) 277 So. 2d 59, but find it inapplicable to the facts in the case sub judice. The able trial judge was manifestly motivated by equitable considerations when he concluded in his final judgment: “. . .To allow this mortgage between principals of the plaintiff corp…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- DuPUIS v. 79TH St. Hotel, Inc., 231 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)
- Gill v. Livingston, 158 Fla. 577 (Fla. 1947)
- Denco, Inc. v. Belk, 97 So. 2d 261 (Fla. 1957)
- Richart v. Roper, 156 Fla. 822 (Fla. 1946)
- Mercer v. Miller, 157 Fla. 78 (Fla. 1946)
- Lorbach v. Eckis, 157 Fla. 78 (Fla. 1946)