CITY OF HOLLYWOOD, FLORIDA, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
JULIUS J. SHEPARD A/K/A J. J. SHEPARD, 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.
The trial court erred in finding the City breached the lease; the parties mutually abandoned the original lease and failed to negotiate a new one, but the City must return the rent payments and interest totaling $28,178.17 to Shepard.
The parties mutually abandoned the original lease and failed to negotiate a new agreement, so the City did not breach the contract, but must return rent payments and interest to Shepard.
[1] When parties mutually abandon an original lease and fail to negotiate a new agreement through no one's fault, no breach of contract occurs, but equity may require return…
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 intelligenceThe City of Hollywood and Shepard entered into a lease contract; Shepard made rent payments totaling $21,250.00 and paid a building permit fee.…
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 Equity cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We have studied the briefs and record (including the testimony) in this case and conclude that the trial court erred in finding that the appellant breached the lease contract between the parties. We hold that the parties mutually abandoned the original lease and thereafter attempted to negotiate a new agreement, but their attempt proved fruitless, through the fault of no one.
We feel however that it would be inequitable for appellant to keep the “rent” payments which appellee made to it, totalling $21,250.00. That amount plus $6,928.17 interest, should, as the trial court found, be returned to the appellee. We would also have affirmed the allowance of one-half of the permit fee were it not for the case of Hollywood Beach Hotel Co. v. City of Hollywood, 329 So. 2d 10 (Fla.1976), quashing in part the decision of this court reported at 283 So. 2d 867. We read those decisions to hold that under the circumstances found in the case at bar, the building permit fee is not recoverable. Since there was no breach by the appellant, appellee cannot prevail on his cross appeal seeking greater damages.
Accordingly, the judgment appealed from is remanded with directions to enter an amended judgment in favor of appellee in the amount of $28,178.17.
Affirmed as modified.
WALDEN and DOWNEY, JJ., and ANDREWS, JOHN S., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- The Hollywood Beach Hotel Co. v. The City OF Hollywood, 329 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 1976)
- City OF Hollywood v. The Hollywood Beach Hotel Co., 283 So. 2d 867 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)