LEEDS SHOES, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
M. A. WALLY ET AL., 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.
Affirmed judgment awarding possession to landlord based on unauthorized assignment of lease, despite tenant's argument that tax payment defaults alone were insufficient for forfeiture.
A landlord may recover possession when a tenant assigns the lease without written consent, regardless of whether other alleged breaches would independently justify forfeiture.
[1] Acceptance of rent from a person other than the original lessee does not constitute waiver of a lease provision prohibiting assignment without written consent.
Previewing 1 of 1 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“By terms of the lease lessee agreed not to assign it without the written consent of the lessor. Further, it was provided that the acceptance of rent from any other person would not be deemed to be a waiver of any of the provisions of the lease or to be a consent to the assignment of the lease.”
Court describing the lease provisions prohibiting assignment and stating that acceptance of rent does not constitute waiver
Leeds Shoes, a tenant, leased store premises under a lease prohibiting assignment without written lessor consent. The lease provided that acceptance o…
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 Unlawful Detainer cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This memorandum opinion is addressed to the final judgment in a landlord-tenant suit. It concerned certain store premises. Possession was awarded to the landlord because of defaults in the lease.
There are several facets:
(1) The trial court correctly interpreted the ambiguous lease provisions concerning the responsibility for the payment of certain tax.
(2) The tenant’s failure to pay such tax increases, standing alone and in light of the circumstances and equitable considerations, was not sufficient as to warrant forfeiture.
(3) The dispositive basis for affirming the trial court judgment is found in the following facts. By terms of the lease lessee agreed not to assign it without the written consent of the lessor. Further, it was provided that the acceptance of rent from any other person would not be deemed to be a waiver of any of the provisions of the lease or to be a consent to the assignment of the lease. Regardless of these limitations, and as the trial court specifically found, there was an assignment to the current tenants. Such assignment was not consented to by the lessors and the lessors, in law, never accepted the current tenants as such. Because of this particular circumstance, the breach of the lease, the trial court was warranted in awarding possession to the lessors. See, Geiger Mutual Agency, Inc. v. Wright, 233 So. 2d 444 (4th D.C.A.Fla.1970).
By reason of Paragraph 3 above, it is our opinion that there is no basis for reversal. Thus, the appealed judgment is
Affirmed.
WALDEN and DOWNEY, JJ., and JOHNSON, WILLIAM CLAYTON, Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fernandez v. Vazquez, 397 So. 2d 1171 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…to withhold consent by accepting benefits, Crossman v. Fountainebleau Hotel Corp., 273 F. 2d 720 (5th Cir. 1959); Barber v. Hatch, 380 So. 2d 536 (Fla.5th DCA 1980); Gould v. Ruzakowski, 345 So. 2d 842 (Fla.3d DCA 1977); Leeds Shoes, Inc. v. Wally, 309 So. 2d 249 (Fla.4th DCA 1975); Tollius v. Dutch Inns of America, Inc., 244 So. 2d 467 (Fla.3d DCA 1970). See Annot. 54 A.L.R.3d 679 (1973). . The court in Grumen, supra, lists the following nineteen jurisdictions as permitting arbitrary refusal: District of C…
Authorities Cited
- Geiger Mut. Agency, Inc. v. Louella F. Wright, 233 So. 2d 444 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970)